Photographer Bob Carlos Clarke took his own life
Me, I am of the opinion that a person's life is his own. Laws against suicide are oppressive.
But don't throw yourself in front of a train. Or jump from a tall building. It is not certain, and it upsets a lot of people. There are much safer and better ways to do it. Pills and so on. I don't know much about it, but I hear there are books to help you.
Before it goes that far, perhaps things can get better. For instance I cured my own depressions in three months using EFT.
36 comments:
Things can always get better.
When it comes down to it, suicide is is an act of someone who is so desperately caught up in his/her situation, and so busy running against the wall, that they are totally oblivious to the open door just behind them - not to miss if they only turned around.
I don't/didn't know Bob Carlos Clarke but he has my compassion.
"'took his own life' after being struck by a train" sounds odd to me - as if he decided to commit suicide *after* having been hit.
Anyway, I know quite well what depression is and the whole topic isn't really foreign to me. After much deliberation I have to the conclusion that happiness, depression, anger and so on are pretty much the results of one's own decisions - mostly unconscious but one can change that - and that suicide is the ultimate cop-out.
It's been said that most spectacular suicides are more a message to the rest of the world than anything else, and that if someone spent the time and effort they invest on planning and executing their suicide into turning their life around, they could well change their situation by 180 degrees.
One thing one could say to oneself at such a point is "I've got nothing to lose so I can try anything" - there ought to be something worth trying, right? Maybe something one never dared to approach but well, if there's nothing to lose why not go for it and give it a try?
I know what I'm talking about. I think supporting suicide is just pushing the utter problem-avoidance (or rather responsibility-cop-out) mentality to the extreme. Where would society be if everyone wouldn't only own his/her life but also be responsible for it? Of course responsibility is something that's not exactly encouraged - victims are so much easier to govern.
>Me, I am of the opinion that a person's life is his own.
I think most people who use that as an argument in favour of suicide also tend to blame others, or circumstances beyond their control, for their life being in the bad state it is in. I think that's pretty inconsistent - either your life is your own, then you should take ownership of it and so something with it you find worthwhile - or it is not, well if you think that then I'd buy some good motivational material and/or professional advice and use it!
Of course in the end everyone has to make their own decisions, and if they decide to kill themselves then that's what they do, but I maintain that it *always* and consistently is the wrong decision. Besides, "supporting" people in their suicide also at least reduces their options to change their mind at the last moment - I'm sure all these schemes support that option but some people's, in particular suicidal people's, self-image might not allow them to do that after having rallied all that support and going to all those lengths. (And being a burden to "everyone" and their dogs.)
If you tell me about all those people who are crippled and in continuous, never-ending pain, I say that I understand that some of these people would like to end their lives some of the time. Probably not even always only because of themselves but also because of their relatives, and there are also lots of examples to the contrary, where people enjoy their lives in spite of such circumstances. And if it comes to the point where people cannot clearly articulate themselves, or not all of the time, we get to the issue of Euthanasia - we've been there before (Germany, 70 years ago) and I don't really want society to go there again - that's very fitting for a totalitarian regime but not for a free and open society. Maybe that's why it's being talked about again...
Anyway, I believe that all this technical stuff isn't really required at all and that if someone sincerely wants to die then they will die. (I also think that if someone not in a hight age sincerely wants to die then they should get support for handling their life, rather than help with dying.)
If people don't die then that actually means that the stronger part of them wants it so, no matter what the "rational" mind says. You can see that sometimes when people give up hope - because someone close to them died or similarly traumatic events - that they can waste away very quickly. (Research says that some people can actually tell up to half a year before someone dies, even if the person itself isn't consciously aware of it and would resist the notion.)
(I also believe that not only *every* illness is psychosomatic but also that we are manifesting our own life-circumstances, but I do understand if you don't want to follow me there - even though the fact that you are so interested in Emo-Trance seems to suggest that you are open to such ideas.)
So I am actually not sure if people really "own" their lives, but in any case they are their lives' masters - of course they can choose to just throw their physical existence away but it's not really a smart choice to make and only goes to show how people can get caught up in stuff that ultimately is totally unimportant, and let that rule their decisions. There are *always* better choices, they may just seem more daunting but if your life is on the line what could actually daunt you?
(And there's the old saying that the sunrise always happens after the coldest hour of the night - you only get to former if you live through the latter.)
Seems like you hit some spot with me there and I guess I've been repeating myself a bit but there you go.
I don't know Bob Carlos Clarke, but he has my compassion.
Interesting in any case that you bring this up in this way - it crossed my mind yesterday or the day before to ask if your life is going ok.
All the best from Sydney
Ronald
"I also believe that not only *every* illness is psychosomatic but also that we are manifesting our own life-circumstances"
Me too. In fact I am a wild-eyed fanatic (another Peanuts quote) in this area. I believe we all are absolute rulers and kings of the universe. And that anything that goes "wrong" either has a purpose, or at least a reason in our own world which can be corrected.
"Laws against suicide"...
Yeah, THAT's real smart. I recommend to give 'em all the death penalty, that's all they deserve! :-P
After all, U.S. laws do send drug users to prison, don't they? As if these people didn't need any other kind of help, just hard time...
"After all, U.S. laws do send drug users to prison, don't they?"
... Which by all reports are absolute hotbeds of drug abuse! Wonderful.
Good point.
Although probably the problems seem permanent to the person.
Well, life's temporary... ;-)
But I like Adam's statement "a permanent solution to a temporary problem" (besides that "solution" doesn't quite describe it).
"Laws against suicide" are pathetic (hey, they weren't even mentioned in the original post!).
Whey may keep some very law-abiding people from trying but they may also motivate other people to make very sure that they succeed lest they be "caught" after a missed attempt.
I think the main idea behind such laws is to also make it illegal to aid and abet the act, which I find sensible. In my mind it's one thing if someone wants, or tries, to commit suicide, and another if someone helps (or worse, "helps", if you know what I mean) them doing so.
Of course the US (or actually most countries') "correctional" system doesn't really correct much at all, rather than being part of the problem.
LOL! :-D
"Whey" -> "They" - never heard that whey would do that...
I hereby present the cynics' viewpoint on why one should not take their own life:
It's just one more pointless gesture.
If there's nothing beyond this life (which I strongly suspect to be the case) you may not feel any worse with suicide, but you won't feel any better, either. You won't feel anything at all.
On the other hand, if there IS something beyond this life... well, all the major religions teach that there will be some form of punishment for those who take this course of action, so you will definately feel worse, not better.
Bottom line: if you commit suicide, you're screwed.
Have a nice day.
"If there's nothing beyond this life (which I strongly suspect to be the case) you may not feel any worse with suicide, but you won't feel any better, either. You won't feel anything at all."
To a person in bad pain, physically or spiritally, that sounds like good news.
"On the other hand, if there IS something beyond this life... well, all the major religions teach that there will be some form of punishment for those who take this course of action"
That is so disrespectful of an individual's self-determinism that it can't be anything but population control.
Those propagating fear- and penalty-based schemes certainly have their own agenda and we all know that the bible has been heavily edited throughout the ages.
However some religions also teach that this earthly existence is basically an opportunity to learn and develop and once you die you're basically stuck with where you are, until your next reincarnation.
What that means is that there's no direct penalty for taking your own life other than that you have to "live" with the consequences (in this case it means you'll just encounter the same issues again in your next live(s), until you learn how to handle them), just as with any other missed opportunity, i.e. it won't really help you in any way, either.
I'm not affiliated to any religion, btw, but also it's not all black & white.
But in the end, whichever way you turn it, the only way suicide is really going to be of any perceived benefit is if when life ends all is over. However I'm saying "perceived" because, well, you're just missing out on everything you *could* have done with life, as I said earlier.
Ronald,
I agree.
I am just saying that people have the *right* to choose death, just as they have the right poison their own bodies (or minds for that matter).
The right to live implies the right also NOT to live. Makes sense. Otherwise, it's not really a right, more like an obligation. Free will as it was given to us is absolute.
You shouldn't commit crimes, but ultimately, you remain free to. This is precisely why you may deserve punishment for it : because you were free when you did it.
Forgive me if I'm getting deeply philosophical. The bottom line is : each of us is responsible for his own life. Entirely.
Eolake,
Of course people have a right to choose death, if they wish. Well let's say I assume so, because I never got my (spiritual) rights read by anyone who could credibly claim that they have access to the applicable legislation. ;-)
(There are a lot who claim to, but in the end their sources always turn out to be third-hand hearsay.)
Pascal,
Are you saying that
ability = right ?
Isn't a crime by definition something you are not allowed = have no right, to commit?
Unfortunately that doesn't give a clue, because against things you cannot physically do laws and penalties don't need to be made (like a law that makes it a crime to disobey gravity, to get back to that one).
So I guess there's no way to work out the ultimate answer with the information we have. We don't know what happens to people who kill themselves, nor to those who die naturally, for that matter.
There are enough people out there who want to tell us what exactly it is that happens after death, but in the end you would have to accept certain beliefs in order to follow their argument.
Of course that doesn't change a thing about us being responsible for our lives.
Ronald,
in your long post you compare euthanasia with genocide... I think that is rather off-target.
Of course euthanasia opens the very big and very ugly can of worms of who is to do the judging... But that still does not change the fact that many people who deeply wish to die don't have the ability to kill themselves. And to one-sidedly punish anybody who would help is not "holding life holy", it is a complete lack of compassion for the suffering.
... If I ever wind up in a terminal bed, old, in intense pain and unable to lift my arms, I hate to think that a person who could help me check out will not do it for fear of the law.
Oops!
No, I'm not comparing euthanasia with genocide, but besides, and along with, the genocide everyone knows about there was also a very systematic program to "extinguish unworthy life" (handicapped and terminally ill people, mentally ill people, children born to the "wrong" parents, e.g. to those mentioned or just those not "aryan" enough), which was called "Euthanasie", i.e. euthanasia.
Until reading your last post, and looking up the word in the dictionary, I didn't realise that this word, which is tainted up to this day in the German language, doesn't have these implications in English - a "false friend" as you call them...
Apologies for the confusion.
However what I wanted to point out, and what I still think is a valid point, is that it can be a slippery slope (speaking in terms of legal and societal development over some time, not with regards to you or anyone participating in this discussion) from helping someone to die who deeply wants to do so and can't help themselves(*), to "helping" someone who can't articulate themselves to get rid of what surely is a plagued existence (you'd be surprised how many people hold that opinion about people with certain handicaps, and with which confidence they do so), to removing unwanted people (starting with those who will be expected to be suffering from an undesirable life, progressing to those who will "only cost the society money") from society.
Also I don't think that society needs yet another law for yet another special case, and that such laws, along with the publicity that goes with them, will only lead to an increase the number of such cases.
Just two more things:
Firstly, if you are really selflessly compassionate, you will just do what you need to do and accept the consequences. If it means you have to defend yourself in court, then that's what it takes. If it means you end up in jail then you end up in jail. If it means that you end up in the death row then that's the price to pay. If you can only be compassionate if/when there is a law that condones what you are doing, really how compassionate is that?
I don't think any society should send people to death row, and we talked about the problems with the "correctional" system before - my ideal would of course be that whatever anyone has done, the goal of the "justice" (? that should get a different name, too) system should be to help people to re-integrate themselves into society, in a positive and constructive way.
Of course such an approach would have to start much earlier and not only address people who have done "wrong", but I disgress. What I was going at is that if society was based on compassion then these (few) cases would sort themselves out.
(Well I can dream, can I?)
In a society that's not based on compassion, or where people try to make compassion into laws, I believe that such laws will do more harm than good - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Secondly, in most cases I have heard of where it was really about some very compassionate person helping someone in a very desperate situation, the judge actually let them go. Of course that's nothing to rely on, but it seems the legal profession is not completely devoid of human beings who can feel compassion themselves, and most countries' legal systems (those where something like euthanasia in a compassionate sense would be considered anyway) also give judges and juries quite some leeway in their decision-making.
I am all for compassion and helping others, and that can in very rare and personal circumstances include ending their lives, but I am very much against some blanket regulation where under clearly defined circumstances (how clear can you be in such cases?) people are allowed to kill other people, other than in self-defence. And be it only to rule out "false positives", i.e. errors (or manipulation) of judgement.
In fact I found that those people who thought that those leading a "joyless" (handicapped, mentally ill) life should be "helped" to die were very compassionate about it and sure that they in the same situation would definitely not want to continue to live. We can only guess what opinion the affected persons themselves have.
Sorry for the long post...
(*) notwithstanding my belief that this is a nonsensical suggestion because all you need to die is a firm resolution, but then I can't really prove that (which doesn't mean that no firm evidence exists) so let's just follow your reasoning here
With regards to the question what happens to us after our life ends, and which impact the various alternatives could have on the attitude we adapt towards the time before that happens, I found this essay quite interesting:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/articles/life-after-death.htm
I can forgive a long post when it has as many good points as you make here.
Ronald,
Sorry for taking time to answer. I live in a complicated neighborhood. Its name is Lebanon...
So, to clarify it. Ability doesn't equal right, of course. "Because I can" should only justify rewardless gestures you do for the pleasure of it like, for instance, smiling at a child you meet in a crowd. (I love to do that! Acknowledging their existence as persons.) What I mean, is simply that in an absolute sense, ability = freedom. If you're not free to do good, i.e. free also NOT to do it eventually, then where's your merit in doing it? "Private, help these civilians. - Sir, yessir!"
We are, at least in principle, accountable for our actions, because we have free will, because when we do them we are free to decide. I don't interpret freedom as a synonym to "legal" or simply "right", because the notion of freedom is much more fundamental.
One small example. I read the following in the very beginning of the Quran : "The infidels [...] shall never Believe, for Allah has sealed their hearts and ears, and a thick veil covers their eyes, and for them great punishment awaits." [Al-Baqara, 2 : 6-7] See also 2:10 for more of the same.
Well, with all due respect to the beliefs of Muslims, I feel this is a load of bovine manure. (Don't worry, I take even more liberties when discussing my own religion!) If you won't see the Truth because it is Allah(God) that made you blind and deaf to it, why the f*** should YOU be punished, since you have no choice in that matter? Do you punish a robot for following its programming? Does Allah also kick His damned car when it won't start? "To Hell with thou, thou stupid machine!"
Of course, a crime is something you "have no right" to do. But if you aren't a free individual when you choose to do it anyway, what do you deserve punishment for? "The Devil made you do it?" I say, Moo and poop. If one is irresponsible for mental reasons, then they should not be punished for a given crime, but still, they need to be safely kept from any chance of harming others again. Treat them, lock them up if you must, but please no death penalty!
Okay, in truth, I am against capital punishment anyway. Not only is it plain barbaric from our society to do so, but it leaves little room for correcting potential errors! Lifetime confinement and/or hard labor should suffice. But this is another discussion.
Also, the whole issue of freedom and the law(s) leads to another huge debate, about abusive laws. For instance, in France, if you publicly question the opportunity of condemning marijuana use, you risk prison. There's a law that prohibits discussing/debating the matter entirely, under the justification of "forbidding advocation of prohibited substances"! Better yet (if I dare say so), in many muslim countries, if you just question the severity of Coranic Law application by some, you can be automaticly jailed for "apostasy", and usually you will be. Sometimes worse. So, we need always be wary of attempts to limitate our natural freedom through sneaky laws, some of which are nothing less than legalized crimes.
What really limits a person's freedom, in truth? Essentially, their ability to understand that they ARE free. For example, illettrism, under-education, ignorance... or locked debate. Restricting porn to adults is normal, because children aren't yet fully free MENTALLY. [That's what education is for.] But how many States outlaw porn/nudity/etc. for EVERYBODY? I say that by definition, this is unconstitutional. Or it should be! When you're not harming anybody else, you should be left alone! And if this somebody else is a consenting adult masochist, the Law should mind its own business... :-P
Eolake,
Your mention of euthanasia is extremely pertinent. My first cat had advanced cancer. We ended his suffering. Not because "he was just an animal". Because we loved him and he was suffering for nothing, at a point where there was no enjoyment left in life for him. To quote my brother : "Enough. This is inhumane!" We should ask ourselves : why should compassion be permitted for an animal, and not for a human being, who understands much more the meaning of his condition, and therefore has much more the freedom -from knowledge and understanding- to make a choice? Obviously, none of the "pro-life" (who incidentally are often pro-death penalty) have never been themselves in the situation of an euthanasia candidate. They're not the ones whose ability = freedom is reduced to nothing, whose potentials in life have been nullified. One might, like Christopher Reeve, still wish to leave. That's an admirable -and free- choice. Chris had some freedom left, like loving his family. Still, ultimately (trust me, this is the seasoned doctor talking), what killed him was the loss of his will to keep living. For some people, it's just as simple as stopping the great effort it takes them to keep breathing.
Admitted, this is not an euthanasia debate (why not, anyway, while it's still legal?). But I know that, for myself, and my parents as well, we discussed the issue and expressed our will long ago. No monstrous criminal on Earth would deserve to be emprisoned for years in an immobile body, perpetual solitary confinement, daily torture-like physical pain, and/or the horror of a half destroyed brain and mind. Much less an ordinary innocent!!! "In the name of Jesus"? Well, Jesus is reported to have had the miraculous power to heal the sick, cleanse the possessed, and awaken the comatose. If you can do the same for me today, Rev. Jerry Falwell, you may object to my euthanasia whenever you like. Otherwise, please leave me be. The first thing I noticed Jesus did, was alleviate the suffering. He himself (according to believers) had all the necessary power to avoid dying on the cross, but yet he didn't use it. Why? Because his time had come.
Say, I should preach in churches. A litterate, sensible-minded believer could do good stuff for the world... ;-)
Please forgive the "personal blah-blah", but I'd like to mention a case in my family. That person is vegetative since 1995 consecutive to a 15' cardiac arrest that, according to all medical standards, should never have been reanimated at such a late point. Some irresponsible cardiologist did it anyway. (That's Lebanon for you...) Now, somebody has to spend their life tending the needs of a breathing corpse. The brain scans show that 80% of the cerebral mass has vanished forever. The person is G.O.N.E. And the relative cannot accept the fact, because the body, the illusion of life is still there. No intelligence, no conscience (or maybe very little, which is an even more horrible hypothesis!), no hope, but "look, he's still there, and alive, isn't he?"
At least, Terri has been saved. From the true atrocity. Anybody waters my roots after I become a vegetable, I'll come back to haunt them when I'm finally free. And trust me, the bill will be redeemable in full!!! A thousandfold. (Guess that means ghosts don't exist, hunh? Otherwise, someone else would've done it already.)
BTW, Ronald. You're right about compassion when risky. Human History is full of examples. In a way, you confirm what I said about freedom and making the right choices. But admit it : when there are laws that deliberately impede compassion, this world should be ashamed of itself. How recent are laws that finally protect wives from a violent husband?
Pascal,
I agree with most of what you said.
And there are heaps of laws that impede compassion, so the world (or whoever is going to claim responsibility for it) has enough reason to be ashamed of itself.
(I'm not even talking about military law here, or indeed the military itself, most of which can only consist through total and permanent denial of compassion. Certainly for whoever happens to be defined as the enemy, but not only.)
Actually I think most laws impede compassion, even if they are aimed at helping it, because law looks at human life in terms of generalised categories, and depending on very subtle differences in interpretation as well as the skills of a lawyer, very different laws can be applied to virtually identical situations. This analytical dissection and categorisation of individual and personal situations is ultimately totally inhuman and the growing framework of laws is part of the problem rather than the solution. The 10 commandments might have been a good start, but from then things have been going downhill.
The cases you describe are drastic, without any question, however how is a new euthanasia law going to help the situation that the person themselves cannot make a decision anymore and the relative who could, doesn't? (Or rather he does, but apparently it's the wrong one.)
Would you want to take the decision out of their hands?
In some countries that's actually how it's done and I am not sure I generally agree with that practice.
Has anyone not heard of the "miracles" that occur from time to time, where people who "objectively" were far past the threshold of survivability came back to life, regained consciousness, fought down an illness? This can only happen if people ignore these thresholds and persist regardlessly. The other problem is that, because medical support is expensive and money in the health sector is scarce, the thresholds tend to be lowered over time. In the end it's statistics that determine where the line is drawn, and while statistics are good to describe large numbers of samples, an individual person might well behave completely different.
This is not to say anything about the case you describe but more generally regarding the question of what is probable and possible and who should call the shots (no pun intended).
I think that there are many cases, probably by far the majority, which are not as clearly cut as the one you describe. In many cases where old people want to die I think it is because they have physical problems and heavy pain *and* nobody really cares for them. As in showing an interest, spending some time with them, taking them out, talking to them, i.e. generally being friendly to them and treating them as a fellow human being rather than as a thing (as was said in another thread). And they often feel useless.
I wonder how many people would not lose their desire to live after enough time being in pain *and* being treated as a thing, and an annoying and superfluous one often enough. And I wonder how many people are compassionate enough with their old and sick relatives to help them to die while not having the compassion to try and make their lives a bit more comfortable and enjoyable (no time, other commitments, too stressful, whatever).
While in some cases euthanasia might be the right and compassionate thing to do, in others it's just the easiest way out for everyone.
Also I believe that it is not always the most compassionate deed to end someones suffering, on the edge to death or not. It surely shows the most empathy but that's not the same as compassion. Sometimes a time of suffering is necessary for a person to gain access to a deeper truth, and outside intervention robs them of that opportunity. Of course, sometimes suffering is plainly unnecessary and should be brought to an end. However I doubt that a law (any law) will be able to address this issue in any depth.
What you said about people dying after just losing their will to live also concurs with what I said earlier. If people can really do that what would we need euthanasia for?
As for the person you describe who is now in the state of being a breathing corpse, I wonder why that bothers you (I know I'm being provocative now, but I also think the question might be worth considering).
If life is just a physiological function as conventional medicine tells us, they won't notice a thing because they are unconscious. If it all just ends at death, life is over as far as they are concerned, so the one really suffering is their brother who is in denial.
If we transcend into some other state after death, there are also two possibilities: either they are aware of what state they are in now, or they aren't. If they aren't, then what's the issue? They'll arrive somewhat later wherever they are meant to go.
If they are, it might be the last lesson they learn in this incarnation: e.g. patience and forgiveness. (If it's bothering them, that is.) Or it might actually help them to come to terms with their own departure from this life and their arrival at that other place. Or maybe they're already gone, leaving that corpse behind (well, I don't think so, but do I know?). Or they are helping their brother to come to grips with reality.
I think nothing in life happens without reason, and that includes the process of dying.
NB: your mention of "Terri" evoked a very faint memory of a case in the US I heard of quite some while ago. I must admit that I don't watch TV, hardly ever consume news in any other media and definitely haven't followed that case, so I have missed out both on the facts and on the public discussion about it. Just in case it might be relevant to our discussion here.
Eolake,
Some while ago you asked for good french movies - here is one that came to my mind during this discussion because the issue of compassion is shown from quite a few perspectives:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064040/
"As for the person you describe who is now in the state of being a breathing corpse, I wonder why that bothers you... it might be the last lesson they learn in this incarnation: e.g. patience and forgiveness."
I am sure civilians in war zones also learn something when they lose limbs to land mines, but that doesn't mean I want to be them.
Sure, everything happens for a reason... but maybe one reason is for all of us to learn how to treat one another! :)
Ronald,
Let me guess, you're american, right? I mean, anybody could make that comment about lawyers, but I get a vibe here. :-)
Undoubtedly, when one is no more in a situation to express their will, things get hairy. As a Doctor, I am reminded of that issue being addressed in Ethics class. (An 8-hour course which many of my comrades, alas, chose to skip in order to study more grade-determining subjects with the final exams coming close. Presence should have been mandatory.) It is only the Doctor's position, but it is frequently a pivotal one. Basically, we have one essential possibility, and that is to cease unnecessary treatment. This includes, at one very publicized extreme, unplugging the machines that artificially maintain a brain-dead person.
But officially, "we have no right to actively end life". Even if the patients request it. Sometimes, we'll know better than they do, because actual pain and future prognosis are very different things. For instance, if I have to operate you from an appendicitis after a plane crash, without anesthesia, it will be a horrible moment, but then you'll have many long and painless years ahead of you. (And you'll apologize for calling me a butcherous monster!) How many times have I heard patients in pain saying "put me out of my misery"? Granted, it is sort of a verbal cliché around here, but still, trust me, it's not something you want to hear.
Considering the recent case of a nurse in France who "ended the misery" of many patients in her ward, without their consent (she was understandably prosecuted for murder), and the very upsetting possibility of regimes "deciding" in your place (as in Ira Levin's This Perfect Day), I tend to say, when we cannot be sure, let's stick to the tool of therapeutic abstention. (An already sticky position with the Terri Schiavo affair.)
"Primum non nocere" : the FIRST duty of a Doctor is to cause no harm. When unsure, play it safe.
As for when we CAN be sure, and Medical science meets with patient's will, I believe it is reminding of the abortion debate : the only thing you get from forbidding certain things, is all the trouble and suffering that their guaranteed clandestine performing will bring. One day, our grandchildren will look at our time like we look at our grandparents' time. I hope!
I'll tell you why a maintained vegetative state bothers me. (No offense taken!) First, precisely because of the pain it brings to the living. That person's relative has sacrified eleven years (and counting) of an otherwise normal good life, simply feeling it a holy duty to save that illusory life by caring for its needs. It means permanent presence, my friend. Like a nurse being constantly on duty. A bona fide form of imprisonment.
Second, because as much as I take my safe distances from the obvious nonsense chucked out by the clergy, and read the findings of Science in Neurology, I haven't decided to reject EVERYTHING like some atheists (with respect to their choice). I am a "rational believer". If there is a soul (better pretend, to be on the safe side, right?), and this conscious soul is seated within that global entity which our brain is proven to be, then what becomes of it if part of the conscious brain becomes definitively damaged?
I see three possibilities :
1-The soul remains there, as long as there is some form of brain life. ("Vegetables" are not brain-dead, only close.) Then, it is another case of imprisonment. Solitary confinement, for years, sometimes decades, in total sensory isolation. Atrocious.
2-When higher conscience is gone forever, the soul departs, bye-bye baby. Honestly? Wishful thinking! A select few "hopeless" comatose cases have awakened. They testified that they did have some moments of certifiable awareness. "Forever" is highly unreliable in some cases. And, there are the intermediate cases. (I won't get into a very lengthy description, read the abundant litterature.)
So, 3-If the soul is proportionate to conscience, a person who is still "50% here" will have their soul torn between here and the Beyond, between staying and leaving. Adjust the percentage to the most discomfortable situation you can estimate, and tell me if this seems humane to you.
In any case, there seems to be a near-absolute guarantee for great suffering. On this, I am positive.
About these rare "miracles", just ponder this : are you ready to bet everything you own on one, single lottery ticket? Because this is about how rare they are. One in ten million, at best. And I can assure you, none of these "miracles" can nor will happen in the case of a prolonged cardiac arrest, where damage is global, guaranteed and well-assessed. It'll happen in cases like trauma, encephalitis (grave brain infections), or localized vascular accidents (bleeding or clog), with unpredictable extent of the true damage. Cases where the brain is not responding, and it seems it never will, but the brain is still there. Not to mention that one may very well awaken, seemingly fine, and reveal grave handicaps when the initial excitement has settled. One man I know, awakened quasi-normal from a herpes encephalitis. Except for one "small" detail : full anterograde amnesia. His memory cannot fixate anything that happens to him after the damage. He is a fully normal person... who is forever trapped in the terrifying moment when he just awakened from his years-long coma. His daily life is nothing else than the ever-continuing of that traumatic moment. You always hear of the "miracle", but never of its later revealed price. Sometimes it's free, yes. And sometimes, a diamond will just fall from space in your front lawn...
Medical science, like the usefulness of an operation, of the relevance of a drug, are based on statistics. No better way was found yet, precisely because of human variability. Some extreme statistics can actually be very relevant. How many people would you condemn to guaranteed and very long suffering, just for the chance of ONE waking up, and preferably waking up reasonably whole? Isn't that horribly selfish? I'd feel like using a nuke to get a spy in a city.
You'd save MANY more lives by prohibiting cars, therefore eliminating road accidents. Will you do it? Let's say, you leave only ambulances, fire trucks, etc... that save lives. Do I hear Pat Robertson calling upon the whole nation for this oh so worthy cause? Hello?...
You make a very valid point about old people. They get neglected, lonely, and sink into depression. My own grandmother has received treatment for hers. Now, she's almost become Super-Granny! This is a purely social issue, irrelevant to euthanasia in my opinion.
"If people can really do that [will their death] what would we need euthanasia for?"
Well, obviously, it's not as easy as riding a bike. Not everybody can move their ears, either. (Sorry. Bad joke.) More seriously, it's not so easy. Sometimes, it's just that the will to fight and live can make all the difference. And sometimes, you'll go when you finally feel you're ready to go. I've seen it.
Conventional Medicine tells us that life IS a physiological function. Whether it is nothing more, it cannot tell us. You don't tell good music just by an algebric equation of its rhythm and notes, you don't measure beauty. Reason and emotion are like water and colour : they can meet in the rainbow but they are very different even in their unity. My very fine glasses don't care what I see through them, as long as I see it clearly. See, I'm not really a "conventional medic". ;-)
I agree that nothing happens without a reason. But some things happen without a need. Like all the consequences of a reason commonly known as "human stupidity".
Would you care to develop how compassion is distinct from empathy? Different, yes. But distinct?
Eolake,
"I am sure civilians in war zones also learn something when they lose limbs to land mines, but that doesn't mean I want to be them."
Neither do I, and that *could* bring us back to the question that was discussed in some earlier thread, if one should take action in the outer world against injustice where possible, or if it's enough to just look insided and be peaceful while accepting everything that will happen to the outer world without trying to actively exert any influence on anything.
However in the context of this discussion I find this comparison doesn't work very well - we are talking about people torn apart while fully conscious vs. people whose unconscious life is unnecessarily extended. At least that's what I referred to. And I understand that the argument about everything having a reason can be used in quite hypocritical ways, i.e. to justify why one is not willing to do anything about others' suffering - I explicitly don't subscribe to that notion. While I believe that there is something for these people to learn from what happens to them, there's just as much, and possibly more, for everyone else to learn from it. Unfortunately progress is quite slow generally...
"Sure, everything happens for a reason... but maybe one reason is for all of us to learn how to treat one another! :)"
Definitely!
It's interesting, though, how even when truly compassionate people get together and everyone agrees that something needs to be done, it seems very hard to agree on *what* needs to be done, or would be the right thing to do. So I guess humanity has still quite a group-learning opportunity before itself.
Pascal,
"Let me guess, you're american, right?"
American? Me? No, Sir!
(Actually that's the first time someone suspects me! ;-))
"I mean, anybody could make that comment about lawyers, but I get a vibe here. :-)"
Where I grew up (Germany), lawyers are not quite as highly-paid as in the US, but everything is highly regulated by a growing legal framework that hardly anyone outside the legal profession has a chance to understand (that sometimes includes the people who make the laws).
It's interesting that you mention "unplugging the machines that artificially maintain a brain-dead person" as something extreme.
In Germany, when you're brain-dead, you're considered dead and the machines will be unplugged, no matter what.
In fact, when my friend's grandmother was dying, the machines were unplugged after just a couple of hours even though she was not brain-dead but the doctors said that there was no point in keeping them going.
The woman's daughter, who was present, had no say in the matter.
Now this was an old woman who would probably wouldn't have lived very long after that anyway (she didn't suffer pain, by the way), but the whole thing seemed a bit rushed to all of us as there were no particular complications.
The daughter (my friends mother who had previously spent quite some time and effort caring for her) would probably have wanted to keep it going for another day or two, just to see if it's final or not. She found it quite disconcerting that it was made final by the decision of the doctor on duty.
In my mind that would be a legitimate wish that should not be ignored.
(Let's not get started on the young motorcycle rider being declared dead even though his heart is still beating because he's got healthy kidneys, an organ donor card and the right blood group - it has happened.)
In any case it seems to me that the discussion about ending life support for people who have been unconscious for a considerable time and whose bodily functions are only maintained with the help of machines could be separated from that about helping people to die who are conscious and who may (or may not) need support to lead their life. In the former case it seems that once you stop keeping them up, they die, without showing any conscious reaction to the change.
The latter case would mean you would have to actively put them down. Of course you could also just end their life-support, but as opposed to the first group that would make them suffer.
Now I've just read up (on Wikipedia) about Terri Schiavo - I wonder why I immediately had to think of the film "Sweet Misery" ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1871783678882092937&q=sweet+misery - very interesting documentary in my opinion - the part I was thinking of is towards the end, last ten minutes or so, but the rest is quite interesting, too).
However it seems to me that she died after her life-support (which seemed to have been just a feeding tube) was removed, and the main sticking point was the question if she belonged to the first or the second group.
Now that's a tough question. I cannot make a call, even though I tend to think that I would not give up on someone who is at all reacting to their environment. I mean some autistic persons don't show much, if any, reaction to other people and still there are no scores of people suggesting they be put down.
Sure, they don't have the physical (hardware) brain damage but how do you know the software is working anyway? Now if they attracted some additional problem that made them unable to swallow food, would you tube-feed them? If so, for how long?
Well I don't have the answers, but in case someone does have even a small amount of consciousness it seems cruel to me to let them starve to death.
Of course one can say that if they cannot sustain themselves at all anymore then it's legitimate to let them die. The question of course comes down to where you draw the lines and who decides.
One could say that is someone's heart doesn't work anymore then it's time for them to die. Well nowadays we've got heart transplants. Personally, I like to think that when my heart stops working I will want to call it quits - I don't want someone else's heart - game over.
How about siamese twins where at best one can survive, or babies who are born with horrible defects and/or cannot sustain their own life right from the start? Or those with multiple allergies who can only live at all, and for a short time I assume, in a clean-room environment?
In a sense these questions and subsequent moral dilemmas are a direct consequence of the capabilities of modern medicine. In societies which don't know about that or don't have access to it, if someone cannot swallow and (in the former case) the local shaman can't help then they will die. If they stop breathing or the heart stops beating, they are dead.
No moral questions there.
(Although as far as I know usually no euthanasia, either - if people are in constant pain and the local shaman can't help then that's how it is.)
"As for when we CAN be sure, and Medical science meets with patient's will, I believe it is reminding of the abortion debate : the only thing you get from forbidding certain things, is all the trouble and suffering that their guaranteed clandestine performing will bring."
I agree. Interestingly I've also come across a few signs of the opposite thing - that people keep their dead around and don't tell the authorities about them for fear that they will be buried too quickly.
As for the case you report: 11 years seems excessive to me, too. However I'm sure you have heard about this case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5142258.stm
It surely doesn't seem as if this guy could ever again lead a life that's even remotely normal, but from a medical point of view I'm sure there would not have been the slightest doubt that even the modest recovery so far was totally (and objectively?) impossible.
Of course one could ask if that's been worth the wait and if he wouldn't have been better off dead. But then that's just again the same question about people who are born with similar problems, and who has got a right to decide they should rather not live. I guess I am quite strongly biased by what has happened, or rather has been done, in the past in Germany, as elaborated further back in this thread.
"One day, our grandchildren will look at our time like we look at our grandparents' time. I hope!"
Quite possible but I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Not everything is better now than it was back then - in fact I could tell quite a few things off the top of my head which are definitely worse.
I understand your point about the suffering of the living - I didn't realise that you were talking about 11 years...
After all that time, of course, you are in another dilemma: if you switch life support off now that person will feel that all this time was wasted, while now he probably believes that he is doing the right thing.
With regards to what you say about the soul, most if it seems to be about it suffering from being imprisoned for a long time.
The main question for me would be if the soul can suffer, and if it has a concept of time.
As I understand Buddhism, which of the religions/philosophies I have looked at seems to have the most comprehensive and consistent (accessible) body of knowledge about the workings of mind and soul, they say that time is a construction of the mind (which you leave behind when you die), and suffering comes from resistance, which follows from judgement, which is also a function of the mind the soul is not capable of.
Of course I might well have misinterpreted something here and definitely over-simplified, but the gist is that the soul is eternal and non-judgmental.
Of course the Buddhists are not the only game in town, and following this argument it would indeed not matter if someone would be killed in error, either. Of course, according to them, it would matter for the person who does the deed, however what counts most is not if it's the "right" thing but if it's being done for the right reasons. So that would let everyone off the hook who is really compassionate, no matter what they end up doing.
"About these rare "miracles", just ponder this : are you ready to bet everything you own on one, single lottery ticket?"
I guess that depends on how desperate I am. If I feel that winning the lottery is absolutely the only thing that counts in my life I would of course give everything for it.
"And I can assure you, none of these "miracles" can nor will happen in the case of a prolonged cardiac arrest, where damage is global, guaranteed and well-assessed."
I take your word for it, in principle. I think long ago I've read about a case where circumstances conspired to still save someone's life even though it was deemed impossible - I seem to remember that he did have a cardiac arrest and fell into a river which was near freezing temperature so that he was kind of "preserved" and could be resuscitated after more than an hour without suffering any long-term problems. That's not to disprove your point, only to say that statistics are one thing and life sometimes another. How does the law cater for exceptions from the rule? Usually it doesn't.
And if people do suffer long-term problems, should they rather not live anymore instead? I understand that his life must be awful, so should we kill him? I guess he is not in a state where he could make an informed decision about that question himself.
If someone suffers the same fate without having been knocked-out for a while, should we kill them as well?
"How many people would you condemn to guaranteed and very long suffering, just for the chance of ONE waking up, and preferably waking up reasonably whole?"
I can't tell if suffering is really guaranteed, but even so I cannot answer the question. I guess it comes down to how you rate a human life and what you consider a "human" life.
"Isn't that horribly selfish?"
I don't know what's selfish about it - I'm not doing it for my own sake.
Just as well you could say it's selfish to pull the plug to avoid people suffering. It comes down to values and priorities - do you value life higher than absence of suffering, or the other way around?
Of course we could come up with a rule that says something like when someone has received all the medical attention necessary for any injuries and other acute medical conditions and don't regain consciousness after, say, three days, then the life support is switched off.
Let's say if the heart keeps beating and they breathe themselves, then we give them another week or so on intravenous support, and if they still don't regain consciousness then, that's unplugged as well.
Then give them as much time as it takes for them to die. If they wake up at any time then you consider them alive and give them all the support they need. I'm sure it would have to be more elaborate than that but it shouldn't be much more complicated - something which is the same for everyone and everyone can understand.
I could live with that, and it's probably as good or bad as any complicated set of rules governing in which cases who can when decide about what form of life support being sustained or not.
Of course that would still not help with a case like that of Terry Schiavo, and definitely not with that of the wider question about euthanasia in general (which is where we started).
With Terry Schiavo I don't know - was she suffering? It seems her husband went to great lengths to save her life and eventually decided to pull the plug - should he be allowed to? Maybe he was right?
Her parents wanted to look after her - should they be allowed to? Maybe they were right? Maybe a miracle might have happened if they persisted? Or maybe they would have come to the same conclusion as her husband before, that it's not sustainable and leads nowhere?
Was the public discussion really about her?
I don't know any of the answers but it seems to me that neither does anyone else, even though everyone has an opinion.
"You'd save MANY more lives by prohibiting cars, therefore eliminating road accidents. Will you do it?"
Funny you should say that - this is actually something I had been campaigning about quite a bit when I was a student. Not exactly prohibiting cars, but using them in much more restricted ways, more like planes.
Two truths too many people seem to forget, or ignore, are that humans are born as pedestrians, and that cars are, besides being capable of transporting goods and people, very potent weapons. It's also an absurdity to use such a heavy and complex technical machine to move one's bum, and that our society seems to rely on that (which makes the fact that many people spend a year's salary on a car even more absurd). Ah, don't get me started on cars... ;-)
And let's not talk about the global consequences of all that fuel consumption, either - e.g. air pollution and the war on oil-owners (what was that called again?). No, I'm not talking about that. :-/
(Well when I did talk about it the mildest reaction I got was that people found me weird, but indeed not many people seem to be talking aobut it at all and that doesn't seem likely to change.)
"You make a very valid point about old people. They get neglected, lonely, and sink into depression. My own grandmother has received treatment for hers. Now, she's almost become Super-Granny! This is a purely social issue, irrelevant to euthanasia in my opinion."
Why? Imagine she hadn't been treated, would on top of that be suffering severe pain and lived in a less caring and appreciative environment than your family? It's no big assumption to say that probably she'd want to die.
I think that's highly relevant and in many of the cases euthanasia laws would apply to we're looking at purely (or at least predominantly) social issues.
"Well, obviously, it's not as easy as riding a bike."
Of course it's not. Life isn't, either, and I don't know why people would expect it to be. Even learning to walk takes its time.
"Sometimes, it's just that the will to fight and live can make all the difference."
Exactly, and that's where social issues play a huge role.
"And sometimes, you'll go when you finally feel you're ready to go. I've seen it."
I think that's what happens, always. Only that it's not always visible from the outside.
"You don't tell good music just by an algebric equation of its rhythm and notes, you don't measure beauty. Reason and emotion are like water and colour : they can meet in the rainbow but they are very different even in their unity. My very fine glasses don't care what I see through them, as long as I see it clearly."
Very nicely said.
"See, I'm not really a "conventional medic". ;-)"
That's quite obvious from your postings. :-)
However the main problem with the approach that's being taught and practiced by most conventional medical practitioners is unfortunately that they only work with what they see in the water, and what they see in the colour, but disregard (reject) the rainbow because it cannot be proven.
"I agree that nothing happens without a reason. But some things happen without a need. Like all the consequences of a reason commonly known as "human stupidity"."
LOL! :-D
Now that's funny! :-)
(Just laughing about the fact that we say the same thing but mean something entirely different!)
When I say "reason" what I actually mean is something like "deeper cause", i.e. not the immediate superficial event that creates the visible effect.
Maybe I should rather say "everything happens for a reason that will ultimately be found to be a good one".
Haven't you experienced it that when you look back at events in your life which you then perceived as catastrophic and find that they were actually necessary to get you to where you are now? That they led to some major improvement in your life? The idea is that that's ultimately true for everything that happens, given enough hindsight. Trusting in that before being able to prove is what faith is.
"Would you care to develop how compassion is distinct from empathy? Different, yes. But distinct?"
I can try...
To put it simply, I would say that empathy is feeling like the other person, while compassion is feeling for, or with, the other person.
Empathy is emotionally driven, i.e. if someone feels pain you feel pain, too, and you want to end it. If you had enough empathy when someone asks you to "put them out of their misery", you would do it, because you would feel the pain and want to end it.
As a compassionate medic you feel for the person suffering the pain, but you also know that it's unavoidable (i.e. necessary) and they will be the better off for it (or rather for what's causing it) afterwards. Compassion is empathy plus wisdom.
Empathy can't stand suffering and acts impulsively, at the level of effects; compassion feels with the suffering but knows that suffering is a part of life and considers the underlying causes rather than worrying about the ripples on the surface.
That's how I understand it anyway - I hope it makes sense.
I've crossed some pretty hard periods in my life (not that I broke any records!), and I learned from them. I think I also could've learned things if these periods had been happier. I'm learning from happy things right now! Life itself is always an opportunity to learn, which is why I always seize it. Still, the fact that hardship tends to bear more lessons, or simply to make us reflect more, is certainly no reason to become masochistic. Like some "wise" people I know...
"Sure, everything happens for a reason... but maybe one reason is for all of us to learn how to treat one another!"
Weirdish. This sounds exactly like one theory I have about the meaning of Creation and intelligent life in it. When you turn off a gaming console, you're left with nothing palpable in hand. But you know you haven't wasted your time if you've had fun. Ultimately, we'll all die. Life is like a journey, and its purpose is not to reach the end but to profit from it. Like a cruise. To enjoy, to become richer in experiences, and to learn.
"Elementary, my dear Cruise. - Indeed, my dear Travolta."
I guess humanity has still quite a group-learning opportunity before itself.
Please, Ronald, let's not drag the U.N. Council into this discussion! I hate politics. ;-)
"American? Me? No, Sir!
(Actually that's the first time someone suspects me! ;-))"
Woops! Sorry then, no offense. :-)
I've just revealed my deep ignorance of Germans, ya?
"Where I grew up (Germany), lawyers are not quite as highly-paid as in the US, but everything is highly regulated by a growing legal framework that hardly anyone outside the legal profession has a chance to understand (that sometimes includes the people who make the laws)."
Now, Ronnie baby, we're not in the topic of U.S. Congress lashing at Grand Theft Auto either. Please, let's stay on topic for a second, nicht wahr? (Actually, ich nicht sprechen sie Deutsch, I just picked these expressions from Nightcrawler in X-Men. Ich weise, das it verdamnt unglaublich.)
"It's interesting that you mention "unplugging the machines that artificially maintain a brain-dead person" as something extreme."
Notice I said the source for some extreme debate when religious pressure groups get involved!
Also, it is kind of "extreme" because, in some way, you directly end up life, if only a body's vestigial vegetative life. I prefer to keep the tone open for most opinions.
"In Germany, when you're brain-dead, you're considered dead and the machines will be unplugged, no matter what."
It seems "you Germans" don't really go for metaphysical hair-splitting then, hunh? I've always thought the Germans (not to sound stereotypical) were very practical. Which can really ease some bothers like brain-dead people. (Your cars aren't bad either...)
Say, do you consider Officer Murphy/Robocop to be brain-dead or not? I'm still wondering...
"In fact, when my friend's grandmother was dying, the machines were unplugged after just a couple of hours even though she was not brain-dead but the doctors said that there was no point in keeping them going. [...] the whole thing seemed a bit rushed to all of us as there were no particular complications."
I've been through this. Even if only with my cat as a direct experience. I took the time to think, and quickly realized that I was being unwittingly selfish, refusing to let him go "because I loved him". But he had advanced cancer, and clearly his life as a cat had lost all meaning. You know, cats are extremely brave and resilient, they very rarely complain at all. But he was just surviving there (perhaps *also* out of love for us). Finally, after making sure his last days were as peaceful and love-filled as possible while I made my decision, I wasted no excessive time. For his sake. Love also means knowing when to let go, all parents know this.
In my family, the same situation has arisen twice, with two very old and ill grandparents. Before my cat's cancer. Let me tell you, it was all but a pretty sight. Both of them had this cultural primal terror of death, while I was sure that what they endured would have been much worse to me than dying. (They weren't very educated...) My grandmother suffered bed-ridden the many complications of Diabetes (to name only the main problem) for decades. It is only when she finally passed from septicemia and multiple organ failure, after days of coma, that many of her children suddenly realized this was actually a great relief... for her, mainly. My grandfather followed a long period later, but since the day he was widowed, you could hardly say he lived. Not moving, no interests, just sitting there in a long purgatory. The day his own complications became too much to survive, he had sort of a revelation. Fifteen minutes before he died, he finally became serene, and stopped irrationally dreading the Great Unknown. I'm so glad he went in peace.
Well, for my part, I think you can reach this sensible understanding without bothering years and years of non-life to teach you. What IS life, really? I see Stephen Hawking, crippled and who was prognosed to die 20 years ago from his ALS disease. Well, HE chose to live, and our time has benefited from one of the brightest minds ever. But is it a counter-argument? Not really. Hawking got married. After he was diagnosed and very diminished in his physical possibilities. He married, TWICE. He also fathered children. Yes, in his state. Pretty admirable. (Woo-hoo! Go, Stevie!) But most of all, Stephen Hawking is LIVING. His desire to live is precisely what beat all the odds. He's not just breathing, metabolizing, and whining in his corner. His life has purpose, meaning, fulfillment. Any law considering grave and officially hopeless illnesses should absolutely take this into consideration. What REAL life there still is.
Alas, deep coma is not a life. Sometimes, it might be transient. Some very rare times, in cases where there was no hope to speak of. Which is quite different from none at all.
The case of your friend's grandmother is what "we" (Doctors) commonly call therapeutic stubbornness. Gratuitously prolonging a life that has reached its term is NOT what Medicine is about. Our role is to help alleviate suffering, preserve health and life... when we can. Not to try for some Guinness record. Birth and death are part of life. A true Doctor must know when to accept one and the other.
Do you know the legend of Asklepios, son of Apollo, God of Medicine? He was so talented a healer, that ultimately he could defeat Death. Thus, Hades, worried about what would become of his Underground kingdom, asked Zeus to slay Asklepios with his lightning bolts. Ka-Zap! The symbol is : we are mere humans. Refusing to acknowledge our limits is, at best, a sin of pride. And, at worst, we ruin lives...
"The daughter (my friends mother who had previously spent quite some time and effort caring for her) would probably have wanted to keep it going for another day or two, just to see if it's final or not. She found it quite disconcerting that it was made final by the decision of the doctor on duty. In my mind that would be a legitimate wish that should not be ignored."
I can relate. This issue is specially sensitive in Lebanon, what with the tight family sense and religious issues. But I realize I had the very same attitude when I had to take the decision about my cat. In truth, I just needed to make my peace with Destiny's calls, and preferably as soon as possible. A doctor should show consideration in such delicate circumstances, but it is perfectly understandable that he wouldn't indulge a purely irrational impulse. That lady was very likely DNR for a while already ("Do Not Reanimate in case of cardiac arrest"), which explains why the doctor on duty didn't need to weigh the decision. She was already a lost cause, but you try and say it bluntly to the family before it eventually happens...
Also, consider another fact. Forgive me for bringing it down to money, but the fact is, health costs, sometimes a lot, specially around the end of life. And the resources of governments are always limited in this domain. (In the countries that are lucky enough to have global coverage... unlike the USA!) Resources will always be limited, because what we CAN envision possibly doing to improve medicine is virtually a financial bottomless pit. Like a local hospital in every village, for instance. Now, think about it : what do you call paying for a useless extended period of health care and bed use, in a system with limited resources, only because the relatives (or sometimes the patients) want time to accept Fate's irrevocable decisions? Well, if any resources wasted are directly withdrawn from other needs, the needs of people who can really benefit from being treated, I know the word sounds harsh, but it's definite selfishness. There's a place and time for mourning, and a place and time for healing. Being considerate and tactful is an elementary and mandatory attitude. But not over-indulging under the effect of emotions. The ONLY condition is, never to give up on a patient in a rush. And believe me, normally, this can NEVER happen. In Lebanon, I've heard or seen everything. But I know Germany isn't another Kingdom of Anarchy. You are a civilized country with a carefully designed System, and laws that are applied.
I envy your faraway planet, oh European...
"Let's not get started on the young motorcycle rider being declared dead even though his heart is still beating because he's got healthy kidneys, an organ donor card and the right blood group - it has happened."
There should be control instances, like there are in Police business. If he IS brain-dead, there should be a special fund to pay for the expenses of keeping his body alive until the organs can be retrieved. And if he's NOT so, or hopelessly lost, such things aren't supposed to happen outside soap operas. It's not an ethics issue, but a matter of whether elementary ethics are being followed. [I do understand how Germany might be extremely worried about such issues after some well-known historical "excesses". Remembering and admitting the Past's mistakes is the mark of civilized people.]
Still it so happens that I have ALSO lived a related situation in my own family. My young cousin actually survived and recovered after a very critical period, but with a moderate brain damage (moderate in size) that results in a form of grave handicap. In a nutshell, she is physically functional in daily life, but can never live a "normal" life without constant supervision. The decision zones were damaged, and in a way she's medically irresponsible. So, of course, sometimes a person will be far from brain-dead, but still clearly hopeless for anything remotely resembling a normal life, because of extensive and undoubtedly crippling damage. I mean, cases far worse than my cousin. There too, "life at all and any cost" is just absurd, and only dictated by emotion-driven blindness. Cases "that have happened" like the example you mention, are often very delicate and emotionally charged. It is possible for a doctor to screw up or be criminally immoral, of course. But it is also very possible for the family to refuse the painful facts suddenly cast upon them.
"In any case it seems to me that the discussion about ending life support for people who have been unconscious for a considerable time and whose bodily functions are only maintained with the help of machines could be separated from that about helping people to die who are conscious and who may (or may not) need support to lead their life."
Ah. The classic distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Thank you for pointing it out. Indeed, "passive" euthanasia, meaning "we do nothing, and this life ends", is accepted. Normally. (Don't get me started on Ariel Sharon or Yasser Arafat. Thank Allah I am not a politically important character whose official death date is critical to national interest!) As of "active" euthanasia, it is, in practically all of the world, assimilated to homicide. But when a person repeatedly asks for an end to their suffering, that they are neither curable nor simply depressive (i.e. without a very relevant reason for their state of mind), and you condemn them to suffer "till the end" (you know the much-hyped cases as well as I), well, let's just say that the standards of society are shifting. Okay, we sometimes get the impression that "not enduring pain" is viewed more and more like a natural right. But we know the extreme cases. Basically, when suicide would feel normal, but is impossible for practical reasons.
"Now I've just read up (on Wikipedia) about Terri Schiavo [...], and the main sticking point was the question if she belonged to the first or the second group."
There are all degrees. These groups are anything BUT voting Democrat vs Republican. More like all the brightness stages between night and day, with sometimes clouds coming and going. One thing's for sure : Terri was NOT living, like Hawking is, and she never would have. At best, an empty body shell lasting for years and years. At worst, what is known as "locked-in syndrome". Basically, total and absolute paralysy, except maybe for eye movements. Fully aware and conscious, totally helpless. Far worse that the state of Cristopher Reeve (who ultimately let himself die of discouragement, BTW). "Locked-ins" are perhaps the best illustration of this dilemma : they can go on for years and years, but they cannot "live". Some choose to hang on. (They may manage to communicate through eye movement codes.) Others see no interest in life and will wish to end it. They can't even SMILE. Imagine. What preacher has the right to force them to "live"?
"I cannot make a call, even though I tend to think that I would not give up on someone who is at all reacting to their environment."
If they react enough to express their will, then you can heed it. Do you know that dead people can still "react to their environment"? If you punch a corpse in the stomach, you'll see very convincing reflex movements, and even maybe a grimace of pain. These totally automatic responses will cease with rigor mortis, when the muscles stiffen and can no more react...
Which is why we rely on things like pupil reflexes : these are mediated by the higher brain, and vanish as soon as the brain is dead.
"I mean some autistic persons don't show much, if any, reaction to other people and still there are no scores of people suggesting they be put down."
Autism has been proved to have some degree of positive prognosis. These people essentially need a sufficient amount of competent effort, and lots of dedicated love. They are not hopeless diseases. They are purely a social behavior-based inability to communicate. For instance, none of them are paralyzed, even if they sometimes won't WISH to move. A lot of thinking has been put into the subject, trust me.
Besides, it has been proved that the "unused hardware" of autists is not really that unused. Like the blind, whose brains reroute the cortical pathways previously used for vision, thus giving them truly superhuman acuity in their other senses (have you ever tried making out Braille dots with your fingertips?), the autists aren't the complete morons they are taken for. They'll usually have at least one potential talent, like music or maths, just waiting to bloom when discovered. And their extra hardware (like the very complex part we use for social behavior) will give them, in this talent, a power you only see in super-hero comic books. Like multiplying two 12-digit numbers faster than you could use a calculator. The famed "genius idiot", which is a very clumsy term. I believe all this extra time when Stephen Hawking can't move on his own is really put to good use, thinking-wise. Deaf and blind Hellen Keller managed to live a rich life. It's a different way of living, but it is a life, and can be satisfactory. For the right people.
Life is not a right, is you don't freely have another choice. And in today's world, the same could be said for death. The same US groups have retarded minors executed, and want to save the vegetative. (Say, what would they do about a death-convicted person that would become comatose?... That's a good Zen meditation exercise.)
"Well I don't have the answers, but in case someone does have even a small amount of consciousness it seems cruel to me to let them starve to death."
"Consciousness"? The same could be said for a plant, you know. They are very aware of their environment and inner state, just in their own way. The germs on my dark basement's potatoes "know" how to grow upwards. And the simple vegetative reflex activity of or bowels, specially regarding chemical reactions during digestion, is so complex it's being described as a "second brain". Just to make you realize yow complex some notions can be. A vegetative person, with no detectable awareness, will still have sleep-wake cycles, yawns, sneezes, cough, blink, etc... Purely automatic. Sensing something, and reacting to it, do not a conscience make.
"The question of course comes down to where you draw the lines and who decides."
There are no clear lines, that's the... bottom line! It's very complex. And usually, in these cases, some people will confiscate the right to decide in others' places. Like in Iran, where the High Clergy can overlook and invalidate any decision of the people-elected Parliament in the name of Allah and the Coran. (Or so they claim...) It is schizophrenic, and utmostly hypocritical. It is also reminding of some U.S. "religious" groups...
"Personally, I like to think that when my heart stops working I will want to call it quits - I don't want someone else's heart - game over."
There too, it's way more complicated than you view it. Would you let a child born with a malformed heart pass away, because "it's already time to call it quits"? Some of them can be easily operated! For instance, persistence of the arterial canal (a bypass that closes shortly after birth) is very serious, but its remedy is as simple as wire knot tied on it. Some of them will be cured by mere oxygen therapy. What about, say, a tooth infection that reaches one of your heart valves through the bloodstream and damages it (endocarditis)? Would you say no to a replacement? It's just a dumb valve, after all...
Wait, I've got more and better! Abnormal electricity. The heart's beating is regulated by a special network of cells, like neural muscle fibers, so it'll be adequately synchronized. Sometimes, there can be abnormal pathways. A single fiber in the wrong place can give you an arrythmic syndrome threatening to end in a cardiac arrest. Adequate procedures can locate and cauterize this single fiber (okay, sometimes more than just ONE). Would you undertake a benign procedure and live a few decades more, or call it quits? A blow to the chest may stop a healthy heart. Cardiac massage can restart it. Do, or don't? "When the heart stops working" is a very risky criteria... Today it is obsolete.
I'll stop there. Even a light-speed overview of Medicine would be too much to ask from our esteemed moderator. And from my batteries : the juice is bound to go any minute now!
[We wish to see ourselves as pure and high minds, but we are always bound by daily matters. The most beautiful woman in the world still has to go to the bathroom...]
"How about siamese twins where at best one can survive,"
We do our best, my good friend. If doing nothing condemns them both, the choice is clear : we must try. And we save the one who has the best survival chance, because there's nearly always one. Their outer symmetry is deceitful.
" or babies who are born with horrible defects and/or cannot sustain their own life right from the start?"
Define "horrible" (cold clinical voice). How about a double cleft lip, isn't that horribly ugly? We try to do what we can, when we can, IF we can. And sometimes it takes long meetings of several very experienced specialists to decide on a course of action. If any. Sustainable life isn't the only criteria. What kind of life is another. If you have a strong stomach, I suggest you google "anencephaly" or look it on Wikipedia.
"Or those with multiple allergies who can only live at all, and for a short time I assume, in a clean-room environment?"
Aah, I've got you there! They can "survive" for years, virtually as long as you and me. The key word is "allergies". Tell me : if they are allergic to the growing number of artificial industrial chemicals that affect more of us every day, is that "Nature's course"? At what extent do multiple allergies become "too much"? It is all directly related to the environment, and its changes. Speaking of the outer environment, amusingly enough, some of them have managed to live a mobile life thanks to a very "cool" device : a space suit. Hermetic and reliably sturdy to the puncture risks of a child's life.
More relevant, is the case of immune birth defects. Those simply unable to survive among our ordinary, omnipresent bacteriae, like the ones essential to our digestion. (There's roughly 10 bacteriae on/in our bodies for each cell. In average. Mostly on the skin and in the intestines. "Yuck", hunh?) Well, if they can be cured by a marrow transplant (effectively grafting them with efficient immune White Cells), how are they less deserving than a like case of leukemia? Often ALSO caused by industrial pollutants, as is being more and more suspected...
"In a sense these questions and subsequent moral dilemmas are a direct consequence of the capabilities of modern medicine."
"Power implies responsibility. The greater the power, the greater the responsibility." (Ben Parker, Spiderman's uncle.)
Technology and civilization are part of us now. For better and for worse. Trust me, as far as Medicine goes, the better far outweighs the worse as soon as you don't act like Mengeley. We just have to be responsible. But then... the issue of active euthanasia, once Medicine has given us the full knowledge of the situation, is a social and personnal issue. Don't blame Medicine for society's limitations. We are reflecting very hard right now on one of THE most sensitive issues of them all : greatly premature babies. We can save more and more of them, but we get more and more severe neuro-motor handicap complications. That's a bit like Hawking, only without the intelligence... If you envy our position in settling this particular issue, please feel welcome to join us. THAT's no pleasant responsibility of our power.
"In societies which don't know about that [...] as far as I know usually no euthanasia, either - if people are in constant pain and the local shaman can't help then that's how it is."
Honestly, I don't know about that. But who told you they all act the same, anyway? In Madagascar, honoring the dead is so important, their whole life revolves around it, and their single aim is to "become a good Ancestor when they too pass away". In Lapon and Inuit tribes, when a person is too old to remain useful to the community, that person simply leaves quietly, forever, without even taking a blanket (these are precious too), they go out to die far away in the cold, and this is considered normal... The only honor THEY receive is probably being eaten by the wolves or a polar bear.
"I've also come across a few signs of the opposite thing - that people keep their dead around and don't tell the authorities about them for fear that they will be buried too quickly."
Which proves my point : you can't always count on the loved/loving ones to have the wisdom/serenity to let go when the time has come.
Not to mention the total nut-cases. Or those "affectionate" ones who are essentially attached to... the continuing welfare checks! (Okay, I'm on the slippery slope here. Let's put her in reverse...)
"I'm sure you have heard about this case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5142258.stm"
Either of this, or one just like it.
This is yet another case of trauma, not cardiac arrest. A case where the precise extent of the random damage is near-impossible to assess, and can only be estimated. Clinical evolution in the first 6 months to 2 years being part of the assessment and prognosis. This was NOT a sure-fire hopeless case, just one where giving the family any hopes would have been very unwise. Like most of these cases. Besides, a lot of the damage here was in the white matter. Which means the brain cells were not destroyed, just disconnected. Still a big problem, but sometimes, and we know it, these axon cables may grow back. Very slowly (1mm/day with a lot of luck). And, you have to hope the cables will return close to their original sockets, or the adaptative capacities of neural pathways willbe exceeded. Rerouting is possible, provided the wires for the basement don't get lost in the attic.
I had anticipated your understandable bias. I know my History too. When I suggest that keeping hope is selfish, I mean that for one case that wakes up (and to what life, that remains to be seen), you've got perhaps ten thousand that don't. Ever. This is why these are called "miracles". But you know, and I know, that every one of these other 10.000's families will only see the dream of the winning lottery ticket. The story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory... One debatable "winner", for 10.000 guaranteed losers. I call such a lottery very crually selfish. Even if you're the lucky one, it'll be at the direct expense of all the others who also have to endure years of vain hope. Because nobody can predict THE winning number!
"One day, our grandchildren will look at our time like we look at our grandparents' time. I hope!"
Quite possible but I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Not everything is better now than it was back then - in fact I could tell quite a few things off the top of my head which are definitely worse.
Of course. But things like women rights, gay rights, or children's rights have definitely taken huge steps forward. That's what I meant. Most of the evolution in the ideas is in the right direction.
You might object with examples like Iran. But they are not evolving, they're very officially returning backwards. To the seventh century when Islam begun.
I understand your point about the suffering of the living - I didn't realise that you were talking about 11 years...
After all that time, of course, you are in another dilemma: if you switch life support off now that person will feel that all this time was wasted, while now he probably believes that he is doing the right thing.
I know only too well. This has become a Kafka novel... :-(
"About the soul, [...] The main question for me would be if the soul can suffer, and if it has a concept of time."
Are you sure it loses the notion of time, if it is still attached to a temporal body?And are you ready to risk it on a theory that seems very convincing, but cannot be proved? You leave it behind WHEN YOU DIE, that's the core of the question here. We're wondering about how dead some peole are.
"I guess that depends on how desperate I am. If I feel that winning the lottery is absolutely the only thing that counts in my life I would of course give everything for it."
Problem is, either everybody or no-one participates in this lottery, when you pass a legislation...
I watched the movie "The Dead Zone" yesterday. Even waking up reasonably whole, but completely out of the time where you lived, can already be very hard. I'd be curious myself to "jump into the future", but I know it would be at a terrible cost.
"I think long ago I've read about a case [...] he did have a cardiac arrest and fell into a river which was near freezing temperature so that he was kind of "preserved" and could be resuscitated after more than an hour without suffering any long-term problems."
The exception that confirms the rule. Intense cold is perhaps the only thing that can (and usually will) preserve the brain cells from the damage of anoxia. Temperature slows the bio-chemical damage. Immersion in freezing water being the only "natural" case known. It has lead to surgical applications in heart-bypass surgery. All other cases of brain anoxia are definitely hopeless when you cross the 3-3½ minute limit... It's been VERY thoroughly investigated since the invention of CPR.
"It comes down to values and priorities - do you value life higher than absence of suffering, or the other way around?"
It IS an individual issue, but there can be certain general guidelines. We are not trees or mushrooms : our life is more than just being there, and getting air, water and nourrishment to build our substance. Although there are some people who never care for more than that... :-(
"They are dead and yet they do not realize it."
"Of course we could come up with a rule that says something like when someone has received all the medical attention necessary for any injuries and other acute medical conditions and don't regain consciousness after, say, three days, then the life support is switched off."
As I told you, the evolution is more around two years for brain lesions. You have to admit, it feels much less rushed! And fact-based. Including the (moderate) facts learned from "miracle" cases. "Miracles", after all, are also a form of statistics. (Hence my lottery metaphor.)
There are very serious and careful guidelines for each case. Organigrams. For instance, if a cancer doesn't reappear after 5 whole years of treatment's end, normally you are considered cured (for most cases), and can hope for a health insurance policy again.
Also, some cases can be "virtually" desperate, with a very small (but not absent) hope for recovery. Advanced gangrene, for instance. Doctors then classify them as DNR if the expectable worst happens, but would never think of euthanasia when a lucky recovery is still slightly possible. In such cases, "we do all we can, but nothing more". Either treatment saves them, or it doesn't and we shouldn't insist. It's not always obvious, but there's little room for improvizing in Medicine. DNR is more frequent with elderly patients, NOT because we don't care, but because their age can become a poor prognosis factor in itself. That's... just life!
"With Terry Schiavo I don't know - was she suffering?"
That's another problem. With my uncle, I can tell for sure that there isn't any human-type awareness left. There isn't a person suffering, although the pain reflexes are discouragingly evident. Like in a very fresh corpse.
As for Terri... look at it this way : if she felt nothing, there was no point in maintaining her "alive". And if she WAS feeling something, well, I know I wouldn't want to be in her place, even against the promise of 73 nymphomaniac virgins in Allah's gardens for a martyr's fate. (Hey, I'm not even muslim!...)
"Her parents wanted to look after her - should they be allowed to? Maybe they were right? Maybe a miracle might have happened if they persisted? Or maybe they would have come to the same conclusion as her husband before, that it's not sustainable and leads nowhere?"
They were religious fanatics. The average understanding time for these people is usually superior to their life expectancy, if you catch my drift. How else do you think one can polish a corpse's butt for 11 years without going to the bird-house? Because extreme religious faith and insane hope in God's mercy are considered socially normal in places like Lebanon. Where you'd say "insane", we say "divine". :-(
"Was the public discussion really about her?"
To ask the question is to answer it already...
"This is actually something I had been campaigning about quite a bit when I was a student. Not exactly prohibiting cars, but using them in much more restricted ways, more like planes. "
Patience, young Ronald Ronaldsson. In 30 years from now, there'll be no more oil. And then, we'll HAVE to settle for less flamboyant transportation. Bicycles and electric cars don't go as fast... Heck, why did the scooters go out of fashion like that? I thought they were a terrific idea! Wheel sports accessible to all, not just the young reckless athletes with incredible balance.
"Two truths too many people seem to forget, or ignore, are that humans are born as pedestrians, and that cars are, besides being capable of transporting goods and people, very potent weapons."
Oh, so THIS is what these appendages are for! I thought they were just to control the paddles on the floor when playing Gran Theft Turismo Carmageddon... And to wear classy Air Nikes.
"It's also an absurdity to use such a heavy and complex technical machine to move one's bum"
Depends. Some people I know couldn't move theirs without the help or a bulldozer. Rich national cuisine...
"(which makes the fact that many people spend a year's salary on a car even more absurd)"
Ant to think I spent a month's salary on a PlayStation2... Now, I don't even move my butt any more. Except for the weekly trip to the WC...
"Ah, don't get me started on cars... ;-)"
I hear you. My dad also had a jalopy that wouldn't start once. He pushed it more than it carried him...
"And let's not talk about the global consequences of all that fuel consumption, either - e.g. air pollution and the war on oil-owners"
Then please allow me the bother to talk about it for you. Specially the war. With all the bombing from Israel, even though we are safely far from the combat zones, their gunpowder smoke is causing everybody a surge in air-borne allergies. Not to mention that burning oil spill they caused. "Air pollution", you said? I wish there were some pollution to our problems!
"(Well when I did talk about it the mildest reaction I got was that people found me weird, but indeed not many people seem to be talking aobut it at all and that doesn't seem likely to change.)"
I thought Germany told Bush to take his second Gulf War and shove it where Helios doesn't shine? :-P
Alas, if the voting people from the rich West don't decide to think about it and adapt their votes accordingly, the whole world will follow this very hazardous path. The politicians and indistrials who hold the decisions in their hands only understand one language, and that's their positions and benefits being jeopardized by a change in public opinion.
"You make a very valid point about old people. They get neglected, lonely, and sink into depression. My own grandmother has received treatment for hers."
Why? Imagine she hadn't been treated, would on top of that be suffering severe pain and lived in a less caring and appreciative environment than your family? It's no big assumption to say that probably she'd want to die. I think that's highly relevant and in many of the cases euthanasia laws would apply to we're looking at purely (or at least predominantly) social issues."
Well, depression is precisely the special state where the wish to die is clinically abnormal and rationally unjustified. The social issue is, until quite recently, it was considered normal for an "old wreck" to be in such a mood, feeling useless, etc.
"Even learning to walk takes its time."
And to talk. And as soon as you've learned, the grown-ups tell you to "just sit down and be quiet". Go figure...
"The main problem with the approach that's being taught and practiced by most conventional medical practitioners is unfortunately that they only work with what they see in the water, and what they see in the colour, but disregard (reject) the rainbow because it cannot be proven."
The scientific part of Medicine, in a good university, is excellently taught. The human part, unless you specialize in some very particular fields, seems to be considered as non-existent. Almost. I think this is finally beginning to change. Slowly.
I won't even mention how sketchy the relation between the two still is.
Maybe I should rather say "everything happens for a reason that will ultimately be found to be a good one".
I dealt with that in the beginning. Mainly, Evil exists because we have free will, and only by free will do we have any merit in doing Good. Therefore, the Higher Reason may simply be, that God-given Freedom has a price, and that it's up to us to lower that price by making the right... "market" choices and limit "inflation" of our moral debt. ;-)
The price of Freedom is worth it. Either that, or God is very stupid. But I think in reality, it is the priests and preachers who don't understand the truth about freedom who are very stupid. (No offense, you holy messes, I mean your Holinesses!)
"Haven't you experienced it that when you look back at events in your life which you then perceived as catastrophic and find that they were actually necessary to get you to where you are now?"
How should I know? I can't go back and see what would happen if I went another way. Except in Final Fantasy 7, but I think that might not be my REAL life. Maybe...
["All hail the divine Play Station. There is no Truth outside it. May our Memory Cards forever remain full. In the name of the Mother Board, of the Sony, and the Holy Joypad, Press Start."]
"Empathy is emotionally driven, i.e. if someone feels pain you feel pain, too, and you want to end it. If you had enough empathy when someone asks you to "put them out of their misery", you would do it, because you would feel the pain and want to end it."
Which is precisely why, even though I know better when I hear it, it still hurts. Excessive empathy is what made me turn down an opportunity for Psychiatry, even though I had top grades. Wasn't a daily life for me. Constant empathy with the feelings of people whose thinking is abnormal would've been clearly masochistic.
"Compassion is empathy plus wisdom."
Okay, you said you'd try to explain the difference. I think you've succeeded. :-D
"That's how I understand it anyway - I hope it makes sense."
"By golly, I think I've got it! Oh, thank you Professor, you're stupendous!" -- (My Fair Lady)
(Phew!) If that posts award depended on quantity, I'd be a sure winner. If it depended on quality? Um... less likely! (^_^)
P.S.: Eolake, I feel like I'm -very slightly- stetching my luck, your web space and my welcome. I can almost hear less patient people yelling in a collective voice : "Oy! Get your own blog, you bloody bore! We want the naked chicks back! SHOW-US-SKIN! SHOW-US-SKIN!!!" If you feel the interest/length ratio is too low, please let me know. "In 200 words or less. Due for Monday."
I've crossed some pretty hard periods in my life (not that I broke any records!), and I learned from them. I think I also could've learned things if these periods had been happier. I'm learning from happy things right now! Life itself is always an opportunity to learn, which is why I always seize it. Still, the fact that hardship tends to bear more lessons, or simply to make us reflect more, is certainly no reason to become masochistic. Like some "wise" people I know...
I've come to believe that it's basically your choice if you're happy or not. It's not something that happens to you. Which would explain why some people manage to be happy no matter what the circumstances, and some aren't, no matter what. Took me a while to take in but I can confirm it's true. Of course notoriously unhappy people will never subscribe to that notion...
However, it comes down to life presenting opportunities to learn, and some of these lessons are tougher than others. Even with what I said before, I'd find it pretty hard to be happy after having my leg blown off by a mine or something like that.
Life is like a journey, and its purpose is not to reach the end but to profit from it.
Agreed.
Please, Ronald, let's not drag the U.N. Council into this discussion! I hate politics. ;-)
Uh, ok. (Can't remember, or even imagine, having suggested that, though!) <:-]
I've just revealed my deep ignorance of Germans, ya?
Nah, just your US-centrism. ;-)
Please, let's stay on topic for a second, nicht wahr?
For a second? You serious? Hamdulillah!
It seems "you Germans" don't really go for metaphysical hair-splitting then, hunh? I've always thought the Germans (not to sound stereotypical) were very practical.
Quite metaphysically hair-splitting they can be, too, but there seems to be some consensus at least on this practice.
Say, do you consider Officer Murphy/Robocop to be brain-dead or not? I'm still wondering...
There you go - finally a case which has you puzzled! He didn't seem vegetative to me, but obviously the opinions differed there, too.
My grandfather followed a long period later, but since the day he was widowed, you could hardly say he lived. Not moving, no interests, just sitting there in a long purgatory. The day his own complications became too much to survive, he had sort of a revelation. Fifteen minutes before he died, he finally became serene, and stopped irrationally dreading the Great Unknown. I'm so glad he went in peace.
He wouldn't have if someone had "put him out of his misery" any earlier. Even if he had asked for it.
Stephen Hawking is LIVING. His desire to live is precisely what beat all the odds. He's not just breathing, metabolizing, and whining in his corner. His life has purpose, meaning, fulfillment. Any law considering grave and officially hopeless illnesses should absolutely take this into consideration. What REAL life there still is.
Doesn't this strongly depend on the social circumstances and how one is psychologically getting to terms with his situation? If you're deeply depressive there can seem to be no REAL life left at all, even if you're in good physical shape. Which brings us back to the question why people commit suicide. I believe many people, sick or not, who now just want to die, would choose life over death any time if they would learn, or had learnt earlier, to appreciate it.
Forgive me for bringing it down to money, but the fact is, health costs, sometimes a lot, specially around the end of life. And the resources of governments are always limited in this domain. (In the countries that are lucky enough to have global coverage... unlike the USA!) Resources will always be limited, because what we CAN envision possibly doing to improve medicine is virtually a financial bottomless pit.
No doubt about that. That doesn't help much to make things clearer, though. How sensible is a new hip-joint for a 85 year old? Or someone not quite as old but severely overweight? Or lung cancer treatment for a 70 year old chain smoker? Wouldn't it make more sense to help them live the rest of their days in peace, and then die the same? Should we put a cap on spending, maybe inversely proportional to age, or proportional to (working) life-expectancy? Or funding-based health care? Reminds me a bit of the film "Brazil"...
Now, think about it : what do you call paying for a useless extended period of health care and bed use, in a system with limited resources, only because the relatives (or sometimes the patients) want time to accept Fate's irrevocable decisions?
I guess that depends on your definition of "fate". If your fate depends on the size of your wallet, which to a certain extent it does already, then that argument wouldn't go well with many people. If there are clear, well-communicated, equitable and understandable rules then it might be a totally different story.
There should be control instances, like there are in Police business.
Controls? In Police business? Like what? LOL!
That pretty much describes the problem...
[I do understand how Germany might be extremely worried about such issues after some well-known historical "excesses". Remembering and admitting the Past's mistakes is the mark of civilized people.]
I agree, and Germany keeps being beaten over the head for it - I wonder what that might signify... ;-0
So, of course, sometimes a person will be far from brain-dead, but still clearly hopeless for anything remotely resembling a normal life, because of extensive and undoubtedly crippling damage. I mean, cases far worse than my cousin. There too, "life at all and any cost" is just absurd, and only dictated by emotion-driven blindness.
See, there we're back to the basics - the difference between emotion (which is basically selfish) and compassion. The value of life and the definition of what's a "REAL" life.
My main point I've been coming from since the start of this discussion is that this is an area where no clear lines can be drawn, and there are sliding scales everywhere. Once we bring in the cost argument (that can has been opened) it will take on a life of its own, in particular in a society where the (financial) "bottom line" is rated above nearly everything else. The same with the argument about what "REAL" life is - I understand that you have quite a different definition of it than them, but that's exactly what the Nazis used to justify their flavour of "Euthanasie". After all, what's life worth if you don't have arms and can't speak? And who sets the standards (I wouldn't say "price")?
But when a person repeatedly asks for an end to their suffering, that they are neither curable nor simply depressive (i.e. without a very relevant reason for their state of mind), ... I wonder who's going to diagnose this, and how reliable that would be... and you condemn them to suffer "till the end" (you know the much-hyped cases as well as I), well, let's just say that the standards of society are shifting.
Yes, and once these standards start shifting, they will keep shifting, slowly but unavoidably. I don't mean to equate that to our topic, but look at what's happening to the human rights: suddenly there's something like "unlawful combatants". Or "pre-emptive strike". Or "detention without charge". These are all shifts that are happening in society which all make short shrift with standards that it has taken very long to establish, and it's not going to stop there. (And they are all going in the opposite direction to where compassion lives.)
Maybe my main worry is less about these, as you rightly say, much-hyped cases, than about society as a whole. Maybe I just fear a society where it's become common to have grandma "put down" because she'd become too much of a burden to look after. Or not enough "REAL" life, as defined by some law or regulation somewhere, left to justify the expenses.
I know I am wary, and maybe a bit paranoid, because of the German past, but mainly because nobody outside Germany seems to believe that this could happen in their country, too - because the Germans are just in some way special/different/pre-disposed/whatever - while I think this is complete nonsense and I'm seeing quite a few of the early (?) developments taking place (no need to name names I guess). It's been said that most people cannot learn from other people's mistakes and have to make them themselves, and that may well be true for countries, too, but I'd hate to see that happen.
Maybe, to put it more into the terms you use: I'd find it selfish to get societies standards shifting in a way that's headed towards the abyss, just to spare some (it's not really that many, right?) people some time of suffering.
I know that's just me and probably pretty much out of fashion, too, what with "common good over individual good" - this could just be communist and we all know they lost, right? ;-)
That would not automatically exclude doing anything at all, but in the end it should be done out of a general consensus that arises from a wide, informed discussion amongst the populace (well I can dream, can't I?).
Far worse that the state of Cristopher Reeve (who ultimately let himself die of discouragement, BTW). "Locked-ins" are perhaps the best illustration of this dilemma : they can go on for years and years, but they cannot "live". Some choose to hang on. (They may manage to communicate through eye movement codes.) Others see no interest in life and will wish to end it.
We keep getting back to this, too. I think if people really want to die, they die. And I actually do believe that it's that easy, or the other way around, if they don't then it is something within themselves stopping them. Maybe just fear of dying, who knows? But wouldn't it still be healthier to help them overcome that fear than "making" them die?
The same US groups have retarded minors executed, and want to save the vegetative. (Say, what would they do about a death-convicted person that would become comatose?... That's a good Zen meditation exercise.)
(For them? For bonus points: how about those who are in the group to be executed because they have been found guilty of trying to end their own lives? And possibly in their current state because of it?)
I agree that these are completely hypocritical standards. And certainly not Christian.
Purely automatic. Sensing something, and reacting to it, do not a conscience make.
That's certainly true, but can you guarantee if someone has no tiny speckle of consciousnes left? The really compassionate thing would be to not just pull the plug, but actively and quickly make an end to their lives. If you do that, of course, you expose yourself to the allegation that you do in fact have doubts.
"When the heart stops working" is a very risky criteria... Today it is obsolete.
Ok, that was too broad, but the second part of what I said clarifies it: "I don't want someone else's heart"
So what I meant is when my heart becomes incapable of working in a way that cannot easily be fixed.
Of course, if it's no big deal to fix then by all means fix it, but if the whole engine needs to be swapped then forget about it.
Sure, there are also heart transplants, but going back to the earlier argument: what do they cost?
I would find it selfish to put that burden on the health system and pull this huge amount of resources out of it (and deprive many other people of their medications or treatments, by making them unaffordable) just to compensate for me mistreating my body in a way that it's now beyond repair.
BTW, I knew a guy who was told 12 years ago that he needs to go to dialysis regularly and would have about three months to live if he didn't get new kidneys. He refused and said if that's the case then I'm going to die but we'll see about that - in any case no dialysis and no kidney transplant. He's still alive and kicking.
And we save the one who has the best survival chance, because there's nearly always one. Their outer symmetry is deceitful.
I understand that, but in many cases even then the survivor will be crippled for life, need permanent medical attention, and possibly also suffer from the fact that his twin did not survive. I'm not saying you should do that, but one *could* also call it the call of faith...
Define "horrible" (cold clinical voice).
Exactly my point: Sustainable life isn't the only criteria. What kind of life is another.
Define "kind of life"...
I suggest you google "anencephaly" or look it on Wikipedia.
Oh, well. Not good.
Still:
http://www.anencephalie-info.org/e/index.htm
You could of course say that these people are selfish, or you could say that they practice unconditional love. I'm not sure how selfish it is of a mother to carry a child for four months knowing it might survive birth by a couple of hours. I don't think I would make the same decision but still I feel that I have to respect those who make it.
At what extent do multiple allergies become "too much"?
Well that's the main motif, isn't it? "At what extent do/does {enter problem here} become 'too much'?"
Unbearable. Unlivable. Unmaintainable. Too expensive. Reason to "put people out of their misery".
Also: how are they less deserving than a like case of "x".
Hello? Pandora speaking here...
We are reflecting very hard right now on one of THE most sensitive issues of them all : greatly premature babies. We can save more and more of them, but we get more and more severe neuro-motor handicap complications.
Yes, it's an interesting issue. I've heard that with these babies in particular, what helps them more than almost anything else is human warmth and affection. Some while back, I've read about a clinic which has extraordinary survival rates with them and mostly relies on getting them to their mother as soon as possible, cutting out on machines as much as they can. I know a couple whose son was very immature and they had to spend hours per day, every day, doing exercises with him, stimulating his skin, extremities, hand and feet. They said it was quite an ordeal, but they also very strongly grew together as a family and he doesn't have any long-term problems now.
I can imagine that many parents do want a "normal" child delivered by medicine, but don't want to go to these extraordinary efforts themselves. I'm sure it's not the whole story, but partially we do have a social issue here again.
As for how to settle it in a general manner, I have no idea and I certainly don't envy you for your situation.
In Madagascar, honoring the dead is so important, their whole life revolves around it, and their single aim is to "become a good Ancestor when they too pass away".
I think that's not the worst aim to shoot for. I would guess that being a good ancestor requires one to lead a good and full life. I'm just reading the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, and they also say that life is the time you have to prepare for death, and that's what you should be doing. That may sound foreign to many Western minds, but I think there's something to living one's life in the awareness of death.
Which proves my point : you can't always count on the loved/loving ones to have the wisdom/serenity to let go when the time has come.
Of course not. I think you cannot generally count on anyone doing anything in particular.
I've just got the impression that it's happening more often nowadays. Which can mean all sorts of things, like me seeing more selectively, the media reporting it in more of the cases, or it happening more often. The latter of which might just be a hint that the social consensus, if there ever was any, is slipping.
This was NOT a sure-fire hopeless case, just one where giving the family any hopes would have been very unwise. Like most of these cases. Besides, a lot of the damage here was in the white matter. Which means the brain cells were not destroyed, just disconnected. Still a big problem, but sometimes, and we know it, these axon cables may grow back.
Uh, and these bastards made it look like scientific news! :-o
But even knowing what you know, would you have wanted to maintain his life-support for 19 years?
But you know, and I know, that every one of these other 10.000's families will only see the dream of the winning lottery ticket. The story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory... One debatable "winner", for 10.000 guaranteed losers. I call such a lottery very crually selfish.
Hm, I don't know the story but it seems interesting...
However, who's a winner and who's a loser? I think some people could be overwhelmed when after 19 years of constant care their relative "wakes up" and turns out to be needing even more care afterwards. Some people may find that giving constant care to someone who doesn't, and may never, respond, refocuses their life, in a positive way. Maybe so much so that they eventually can come to terms with saying goodbye to them. So it costs money - I wonder how much really, compared to some other posts in most countries' economies which I find much more dispensable (hint: mainly devoted to killing people).
Also with regards to the numbers, how frequent are such extreme cases, really?
But things like women rights, gay rights, or children's rights have definitely taken huge steps forward. That's what I meant. Most of the evolution in the ideas is in the right direction.
You might object with examples like Iran. But they are not evolving, they're very officially returning backwards. To the seventh century when Islam begun.
Other religious extremists of every couleur are doing their best to follow suit.
Are you sure it loses the notion of time, if it is still attached to a temporal body?
Sure? Can you be sure of anything you haven't experienced yourself?
The theory is that soul does at no time (sic!) have a notion of time, it's mind that does, and though you only leave it behind at death, it needs the brain to work.
And are you ready to risk it on a theory that seems very convincing, but cannot be proved?
Do you have any theories that can be proven? Do you know what risk you run if/when you let people die intentionally, or kill them? If we had the information it would be easy to make a decision but as it is, one argument is as good as another.
You leave it behind WHEN YOU DIE, that's the core of the question here. We're wondering about how dead some peole are.
Well yes, you leave behind what's left of it. However if you say there's no consciousness, or awareness, then there's no suffering, according to this theory. Well we know that to be true even for people under narcosis, which is the reason why it's being used. I'm sure the soul is still around in that state, but the conscious mind is switched off.
Even waking up reasonably whole, but completely out of the time where you lived, can already be very hard. I'd be curious myself to "jump into the future", but I know it would be at a terrible cost.
Yes. Some people found that overtaking a truck in a particular spot came at a terrible cost to them. Or going out to get cigarettes at night-time in a dodgy quarter. Life's unpredictable and the main question in my mind is if you're willing to take whatever challenges it throws you, or not.
If not, then why get born? (Ok, that was lame but I couldn't resist, sorry!)
As I told you, the evolution is more around two years for brain lesions. You have to admit, it feels much less rushed!
I do, and it seems that I've missed that. Sure, the sort of general guidelines you are outlining make sense.
I know I wouldn't want to be in her place, even against the promise of 73 nymphomaniac virgins in Allah's gardens for a martyr's fate.
Well that's just you - maybe she doesn't care for nymphomanic virgins...
(Besides that seeming like an oxymoron, it also appears more like a threat to me, in the longer term...)
But there we get back to the question of who makes the call. I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree (nor am I sure I disagreee, I just find it hard to make a call, even as an external observer).
They were religious fanatics. The average understanding time for these people is usually superior to their life expectancy, if you catch my drift.
I do...
Where you'd say "insane", we say "divine". :-(
I see... - sure, there's an area where faith blends into fatalism...
In 30 years from now, there'll be no more oil. And then, we'll HAVE to settle for less flamboyant transportation. Bicycles and electric cars don't go as fast... Heck, why did the scooters go out of fashion like that? I thought they were a terrific idea! Wheel sports accessible to all, not just the young reckless athletes with incredible balance.
I think that's not even the worst thing. I think the worst thing is that we are not using (or haven't begun using) the time until then to prepare for, and alleviate the situation. Or rather build a new perspective. The worst thing will be being confronted with the situation without being the least bit prepared for it - maybe a bit like the topic of life and death discussed further up.
Then please allow me the bother to talk about it for you. Specially the war. With all the bombing from Israel, even though we are safely far from the combat zones, their gunpowder smoke is causing everybody a surge in air-borne allergies. Not to mention that burning oil spill they caused.
Yuck. I wouldn't want to blame this one on cars directly, though...
"Air pollution", you said? I wish there were some pollution to our problems!
Uh, now we are mixing threads with the one about Youth Anasia, are we? 8-}
I thought Germany told Bush to take his second Gulf War and shove it where Helios doesn't shine? :-P
Kind of, and they are sure glad they did. (Not only because they are still busy enough in Afghanistan after the US pulled out.)
Alas, if the voting people from the rich West don't decide to think about it and adapt their votes accordingly, the whole world will follow this very hazardous path. The politicians and indistrials who hold the decisions in their hands only understand one language, and that's their positions and benefits being jeopardized by a change in public opinion.
Absolutely. That's why they make sure to basically run the media, make sure people don't learn too much at school about how to use their brain independently, and that the majority of people is just too busy keeping their own lives together to become annoying to those running politics.
I actually think Germany is doing relatively well with regards to the environment, but still people just show that blank stare of incomprehension when you ask them if they find it normal our cities are designed to suit cars rather than humans and you cannot walk three meters out of the door without needing to watch out not to be run over by one.
Here in Australia you don't even need to talk about that. Of course the infrastructure needs are completely different from densely populated Germany, but Sydney's traffic system is a mess and it also doesn't mean that they need to keep regulations in place that had been scrapped in Europe in the 60s (and not sign Kyoto...).
Therefore, the Higher Reason may simply be, that God-given Freedom has a price, and that it's up to us to lower that price by making the right... "market" choices and limit "inflation" of our moral debt. ;-)
Or make up our own laws, rules and regulations to remove that freedom again - then we can always use the Nuremberg-excuse (I was ordered to).
How should I know? I can't go back and see what would happen if I went another way.
Well unless life is a limited-state game you would for sure be in a different situation from where you are now. Also often it is relatively straight-forward to say in hindsight which lessons were learnt from a particular situation and how they helped in adverse situations afterwards.
["All hail the divine Play Station. There is no Truth outside it. May our Memory Cards forever remain full. In the name of the Mother Board, of the Sony, and the Holy Joypad, Press Start."]
D'oh! You're a pagan! I knew it!! ;-)
"By golly, I think I've got it! Oh, thank you Professor, you're stupendous!" -- (My Fair Lady)
LOL! :-D
If that posts award depended on quantity, I'd be a sure winner. If it depended on quality? Um... less likely! (^_^)
You're too modest! ;-)
Indeed this thread seems to be growing exponentially - each new post being as long as all previous ones together. I've tried with mine to break with that pattern...
Eolake, I feel like I'm -very slightly- stetching my luck, your web space and my welcome.
I'm not so sure about that after he advertised this thread in a new post, even claiming that he came up with the E-word! ;->
(Fortunately?) people need to scroll down more than half the start page to get to the original post, and then click on "Comments" - I wonder if anyone is still following it at all. (If they do then they must be really interested! I wonder if the E-word generated any new traffic for the site...)
In another week or so it'll be off the page and into the archive.
"In 200 words or less. Due for Monday."
That'd be a tough call, though. I'm sure I could cut back on the length of my posts quite a bit if I spent much more time with them, but that'd clearly push them over the limit of how much time I would want to spend with them.
Well I guess most arguments have been exchanged now - unless someone else decides to chime in with some new aspects - even though I'm sure we could well keep going for some time. However it doesn't really feel much like a public discussion to me anymore.
Well I guess most arguments have been exchanged now
Right. Which is why I'm breaking the exponential cuve. Or plannig to!!!
In another week or so it'll be off the page and into the archive.
At last! That stubborn link has outlived its usefulness for Society! ;-p
I'd find it pretty hard to be happy after having my leg blown off by a mine or something like that.
In a nutshell, it sums up to how much hardship you'll be capable of accepting in your life. But I have one final "extreme" case to mention : a 24 year old young man (true story), very badly damaged in a road accident... but mostly physically! Basically, deaf, blind, mute, and almost completely paralyzed. (I really wish I was only making it up!) Apart from that, the life expectancy of a healthy 24 year old who used to love life : about 50 more years. Fully conscious in his solitary confinement. Via eye movement code, or moving his finger, I forget, he could painstakingly communicate. Damage being FINAL, from spinal damage. He begged for euthanasia.
BTW, he got it, but the law then prosecuted. I think the mother and doctor have been cleared of all charges thanks to public opinion pressure. I know for SURE that I would decide like the guy. You are free to feel otherwise should it happen to you. In the end, we each have to decide, whenever we can.
As for how to determine when it is a matter of clinical depression or understandable despair, well, let's just say that there are competent and experienced psychologists, and they take into account the cultural elements and religious beliefs. But if you were a proud atheist before your accident, and both your very religious parents have turned to Rev. Falwell or Robertson in their moment of despair, YOUR position is the one that should matter the most. ***Normally.***
Please, Ronald, let's not drag the U.N. Council into this discussion! I hate politics. ;-)
Uh, ok. (Can't remember, or even imagine, having suggested that, though!) <:-]
Really? (sarcastic sneer) Then what ELSE could "humanity's group-learning opportunity" mean, hunh?
BTW, I was in fact being sarcastic toward the U.N. Council. Now THERE'S an interesting candidate for euthanasia. I just can't bear to see a dumb dinosaur suffer and squirm for decades like this!
I've just revealed my deep ignorance of Germans, ya?
Nah, just your US-centrism. ;-)
Listen, mister, it's just a Lebanese's national duty to focus all his frustration on the USA to the point of obsession. Otherwise, we'd have to face our own part of responsibility in our country's ordeals, and everybody damn well knows "it is all America's fault, from A to Z". America and Israel, of course.
Please, let's stay on topic for a second, nicht wahr?
For a second? You serious? Hamdulillah!
Sorry, second's over. Your time is up, you pretending infidel. ;-)
Good culture, though. I'd still gladly slit your throat, but with great respect. (No need to thank me, really...)
It seems "you Germans" don't really go for metaphysical hair-splitting then, hunh? I've always thought the Germans (not to sound stereotypical) were very practical.
Quite metaphysically hair-splitting they can be, too, but there seems to be some consensus at least on this practice.
Yes. Austrian Freud and Co. They invented the practical method for metaphysical hair-splitting. An impressive accomplishment.
Say, do you consider Officer Murphy/Robocop to be brain-dead or not? I'm still wondering...
There you go - finally a case which has you puzzled! He didn't seem vegetative to me, but obviously the opinions differed there, too.
"Didn't seem"? Have you seen his acting?
My grandfather [...] I'm so glad he went in peace.
He wouldn't have if someone had "put him out of his misery" any earlier.
The fact is, he became a bona fide case of therapeutic abstention. Moderate problem piling over moderate problem had reached a no-return point. And I think he went in peace, essentially, from finally realizing that death can become a friend in the Order of things. Peace from his terror of the unavoidable End.
Which brings us back to the question why people commit suicide.
Of course, if you're a secret agent in a specific situation, suicide might be the brave thing to do. But I'm digressing there. We won't answer the deep question of suicide just on this blog. I'll just say this : apart from doing all we can to convince somebody to choose life, we cannot force them to live. Ultimately, we have no right to force someone to live. Under one condition I like repeating : freedom comes from knowledge. An ignorant only has the illusion of being free. So, I'd say mere depression is the ignorance of those who don't know better. I've been in depression, and fortunately I knew better than to consider suicide. Knowledge might even have saved me...
Reminds me a bit of the film "Brazil"...
I've seen it. Indeed, sense is unfortunately very unlikely to rule the world one day from the looks of things today. Still, I won't give up hope.
I guess that depends on your definition of "fate". If your fate depends on the size of your wallet, which to a certain extent it does already...
We're on total agreement here. See previous comment. I sincerely DO hope the world keeps improving. Though it sometimes seems like a real miracle how it managed to improve to the actual point. Which means we might not always see them, but there must be some reasons for hope.
There should be control instances, like there are in Police business.
It might be only a facade, but I seem to have heard about a thing called "Internal Affairs". In civilized countries. And in theory.
Remembering and admitting the Past's mistakes is the mark of civilized people.
I agree, and Germany keeps being beaten over the head for it - I wonder what that might signify...
It signifies that repenting is no reason to forgive, and that you'll bear the mark of the sins of your fathers until the seventieth generation. Which is only fair, right? :-(
Antisemitism is very well-spread in this part of the world. Including among christian Arabs. I just LOVE that particular argument : "The jews are a criminal people : they crucified Jesus!"
And, of course, today's jews are still just as guilty, hunh? Oh, wait, I thought it was the Roman administration that carried out the Sanhedrin's sentence? :-P
My main point I've been coming from since the start of this discussion is that this is an area where no clear lines can be drawn
Hey! I'm sure I've said it first! (So, even though we agree, we have an excellent reason to fight. Weeee!)
the argument about what "REAL" life is - I understand that you have quite a different definition of it than them, but that's exactly what the Nazis used to justify their flavour of "Euthanasie".
Actually, I think the Nazis never bothered with any pretense of compassion. They were just "cleaning the race", making sure nobody involved would wonder between a real life or just being alive. Very practical people, in their own way... :-(
I don't mean to equate that to our topic, but look at what's happening to the human rights
Again, that shift is merely pretending not to travel in reverse. It just needed a fancy, new-sounding label. Bullies always like to justify themselves, and to feel noble. The self-assumed villains I love so much in cartoons are alas characters of pure fiction.
But this makes it okay to like them!!! :-D
Maybe my main worry is less about these, as you rightly say, much-hyped cases, than about society as a whole.
Please, just... don't remind me. I'm trying to forget, so my necessary optimism will keep going.
Maybe I just fear a society where it's become common to have grandma "put down"
Actually, I've found out that not very long ago, unwanted useless elders used to have very convenient accidents, which nobody ever questioned. Typically : "Grandma went to the attic, but the last ladder step broke. Poor Grandma." The end. It even became an expression : "to send Granny up the attic"...
I know I am wary, and maybe a bit paranoid, because of the German past, but mainly because nobody outside Germany seems to believe that this could happen in their country, too -
Why, of course! "Germans/Nazis were monsters, therefore they had nothing in common with human beings, ergo, such terrible things can never happen in a human society." Pretty convenient, hunh? ):-P
It's been said that most people cannot learn from other people's mistakes and have to make them themselves, and that may well be true for countries, too, but I'd hate to see that happen.
Then you'd better turn off your TV, and quick! Otherwise you're gonna see it. Today.
I know that's just me and probably pretty much out of fashion, too, what with "common good over individual good" - this could just be communist and we all know they lost, right? ;-)
In fact, the first thing they *lost* was their principles. Read Orwell's Animal Farm...
it should be done out of a general consensus that arises from a wide, informed discussion amongst the populace (well I can dream, can't I?).
I don't know what you're having, but I want the same! I'm having somme difficulty dreaming in pink these days...
I think if people really want to die, they die. [...] if they don't then it is something within themselves stopping them.
This could be the beginning of a whole new, and extremely interesting discussion. A most interesting point...
For bonus points: how about those who are in the group to be executed because they have been found guilty of trying to end their own lives? And possibly in their current state because of it?
I hate you for coming up with this one before I did!
"I don't want someone else's heart"
You know, I'd love to think, should something happen to me, that every possible useful part of me could serve in helping others. And since this implies I have a good heart ;-) it should be used for a transplant if possible. Not, as some feel for themselves, because that way part of me would keep living on. Just because what I don't need any more, I love to give to whom it may help. And don't worry : if you don't want to be transplanted with my heart, there's never a shortage of candidates willing to take your place.
Of course, that doesn't keep me from hoping I'll darn well live a century, and preferably die from ecstasy while having wild, amazing sex! If possible. ;-)
And then, my manhood will be transplanted to a truly deserving candidate, who'll become the new world legend.
if the whole engine needs to be swapped then forget about it.
That's your choice. See? Some would say that your refusal of being treated with an available transplant is a form of suicide, just like refusing to have a transfusion or to take antibiotics.
I would find it selfish to put that burden on the health system
Very noble of you. But trust me, the real problem with the health system's burden is not patients who selfishly choose to accept a costly efficient treatment. More like the wasting and corruption that steals or squanders from it. And that's definitely a selfish crime that deprives others of treatment.
Interestingly enough, though, I heard that in Morocco, the king refused to open a heart-surgery unit in the capital, because with the money about to go in that project, he could rather launch a nationwide campaign and vaccinate every last child against Polio. Wisdom with limited resources...
But YOU don't live in Morocco, engine boy.
just to compensate for me mistreating my body in a way that it's now beyond repair.
Ah. Of course, if you've been direclty responsible for your heart's problems, you'd be selfish to say "me first". However, we don't transplant hearts to people with cholesterol-clogged arteries. It'd be useless : if you're beyond conventional treatment, the arteries in the rest of the body are usually in such bad shape that the stress of a transplant could kill you. AND, because dying from heart arrest is probably the best way one would wish, instead of many very unpleasant events like cerebral attack, intestinal necrosis, leg gangrene...
Still, I get your point. I wish there were more people as honest as you among my patients. The UK had a similar polemics a few years ago, when physicians said they'd stop operating for coronary bypass patients that didn't quit smoking. To save these resources for those willing to really preserve their life. Made a lot of noise.
So many stupid fat smokers in Lebanon... :-(
[Siamese] I'm not saying you should do that, but one *could* also call it the call of faith...
Perhaps. It's never easy with extreme birth malformations.
As with your anencephaly link. Of course, who's to say we should shorten further a life expectancy of a few hours? Well, I don't. I just feel that in this particular case, the fact that these babies naturally don't survive for long and we can do nothing about it feels very merciful from Fate.
Define "horrible" (cold clinical voice).
Exactly my point: Sustainable life isn't the only criteria. What kind of life is another.
Define "kind of life"...
"Are you playing smart-Alec with me, boy?"
No, seriously, I know that you know that we've been around this issue. ;-)
I'm not sure how selfish it is of a mother to carry a child for four months knowing it might survive birth by a couple of hours. I don't think I would make the same decision but still I feel that I have to respect those who make it.
Considering how difficult any decision for euthanasia is, I think the general consensus is, if the parents are aware of it and don't wish to have an abortion, it's not really a problem anyway. Anencephaly is a very hard thing to meet with, but ethics-wise it is very... cooperative. Self-solving.
Hello? Pandora speaking here...
Why, Pandora, good to see you! What kept you? Oh, a gift for me? What's in the box? Wait, I'll open it right away.
greatly premature babies. [...] I've heard that with these babies in particular, what helps them more than almost anything else is human warmth and affection.
I don't know if it can be enough, but I find it highly ethical to try and medicate them with high doses of this. For life. :-)
And perhaps feeling loved is the first step in wanting to live? Live for love, I like the sound of that.
I can imagine that many parents do want a "normal" child delivered by medicine, but don't want to go to these extraordinary efforts themselves.
I can imagine too, but I wouldn't be proud to be one of them. I also met such a situation. Still, sometimes circumstances are against you. For instance, both parents working full-time because they're so poor they don't have a choice. Pandora? Damn, girl, there was really a lot of stuff in that box, wasn't it?
That may sound foreign to many Western minds, but I think there's something to living one's life in the awareness of death.
Sure. But I think we agreed that life is more than the road leading you from birth to death. Many people make valid points. We should take them into consideration, without pushing all the rest aside.
As for Madagascar, here's a brief outlook : they get themselves in debt for decades, just so departed Daddy can have a luxurious coffin and a very costly hand-weaved shroud, that kind of stuff. Suddenly seems much less deep, doesn't it? The cult of the Ancestors basically means, that you'll spend your life caring for the remains of your fathers, and when you die, your children will, at last, do the same to keep you tired corpse comfy so your spirit will bless them... There's not very much beyond that.
But even knowing what you know, would you have wanted to maintain his life-support for 19 years?
I think I wouldn't have wanted MINE maintained. As much as I love lingering in bed, too much is too much!
The law considers a person legally dead when they go AWOL for seven full years. I think such a criteria for the maximum maintaining of a (near?) hopeless coma sounds quite reasonable. For the most stubborn. THIS sounds like a sensible topic for a legal campaigning, doesn't it?
Hm, I don't know the story but it seems interesting...
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A classic children's book, twice adapted as a movie. The first starring Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka, the second starring Johnny Depp and produced recently by Tim Burton. Very easy to rent.
However, who's a winner and who's a loser?
So, you begin to see my whole point. Life for the single sake of keeping a body functioning is rather missing the point. To re-use an earlier argument, we might put that money to better use by sending it into medical research for genetic deseases, or simply decreasing the crime rate in poor neighborhoods. We'd do much more good in terms of lives saved AND improved.
Listen to me, lobbing such ideas at the very same time an absurd war has crossed the thousand dead count in my country. War : now, here's the undisputed record cause of waste in human history!
The remedy exists : it's sense, educating the masses and accounting the leaders for their disrespect of ethics. Alas! So many people refuse to take their medication, that it is hardly being manufactured at all. But I digress again, right Pandora?
BTW, do you know how the myth of Pandora continues? She closed the box as fast as she could, but too late. Almost too late. There, at the bottom of the cursed box, she managed to keep the only remedy for the calamities she had unleashed. Because among them, there was also Hope. And to this day, Mankind still possesses Hope.
So it costs money - I wonder how much really, compared to some other posts in most countries' economies which I find much more dispensable (hint: mainly devoted to killing people).
"I really have no idea what you are talking about", the old general said impatiently.
Also with regards to the numbers, how frequent are such extreme cases, really?
I don't have figures, you'll have to search for yourself. Let's just say, there's about one or two "miracles" each year, I mean long-going comas where no hope was envisioned (as opposed to transient comas, like my cousin), out of all the cases of comas, brain-dead and vegetative states in the world. I expect, less than one in a hundred thousand, perhaps less than one in a million. Specially if you want to consider the cases where a patient actually becomes conscious again, as in interacting with others.
Other religious extremists of every couleur are doing their best to follow suit.
That'd be "doing their holy worst". Not to sound gratuitously grandiloquent, but this is really where the fate of Mankind is being decided. Specially if you consider the Ayatollahs want the Bomb... and clearly suggest they intend to use it!
The best hope would be to overturn the theocracy in Iran... but in such a way that it doesn't appear as "hated America's" agenda. In a subtle, reasoned, pacific way. And I fear an open war against Iran would do just the opposite. U.N. sanctions against Saddam were working, the best proof is he had no WMDs left to discover.
The theory is that soul does at no time (sic!) have a notion of time, it's mind that does, and though you only leave it behind at death, it needs the brain to work.
So, you feel that if the mind is on neutral, the soul doesn't suffer. But it really depends on what the soul really is, doesn't it? I mean, there's more than just the physical perception of body pain, here. Souls trapped in Limbo are supposed to suffer a soul's suffering there, I heard.
Another can of maggots spilled on the Persian carpet. His Holiness Ali Akbar Khamenei will be furious!
And are you ready to risk it on a theory that seems very convincing, but cannot be proved?
Do you have any theories that can be proven?
In Physics, yes. In the present matter, no. But I feel as if the first saving step would be to clean house from the theories of all the bigots. Which is already a challenging task!
Life's unpredictable and the main question in my mind is if you're willing to take whatever challenges it throws you, or not.
If not, then why get born? (Ok, that was lame but I couldn't resist, sorry!)
"Thy sins are forgiven, my son." However, we very well know that there are some risks way more unreasonable than others. Like reckless driving.
Do you think if we can choose to stop living, at the limit we can choose not to be born? (I once heard a joke that started like that. It's a pregnant woman who's beyond term...)
But there we get back to the question of who makes the call. I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree (nor am I sure I disagreee, I just find it hard to make a call, even as an external observer).
It gets all the harder to make a call when you have whole mobs besieging you to make it in your place. I find it tough to concentrate under extreme pressure...
I think the worst thing is that we are not using (or haven't begun using) the time until then to prepare for, and alleviate the situation [about oil].
Things are, thankfully, starting to change there too. Beginning with some oil companies already worried about the future of their business, and thinking more and more towards alternative and "clean" energies. But I'm ready to bet there will still be a major crisis when the time comes, because most politicians won't have cared and planned enough. See you in thirty for that bet, then, old chap.
"Air pollution", you said? I wish there were some pollution to our problems!
Uh, now we are mixing threads with the one about Youth Anasia, are we? 8-}
I'll have you know that Youth Anasia is the daughter of this thread. So, we're shopping in a family business here...
Either that, or she's the siamese sister of the Heir Prince of Atlantis, who is also her uncle. But I'm not sure, I've missed a few episodes of The Borg and the Bountiful.
Absolutely. That's why they make sure to basically run the media, make sure people don't learn too much at school about how to use their brain independently, and that the majority of people is just too busy keeping their own lives together to become annoying to those running politics.
You sound just like a liberal left-wing radical. Are you SURE you're not american? (And a very bad patriot?)
I actually think Germany is doing relatively well with regards to the environment
I think too. Actually, I have great respect for Germany. Even after all the laughs you guys gave me with your last election!
You should try the Lebanese way : the results are known and almost official even before the voting starts. :-\
Why, in the Nineties, when General Aoun was putting up a Cabinet, many candidates found out about their own refusal to participate in that government by reading the Syrian-controlled newspapers! Until then, they didn't know they had already said "No". Really.
Here in Australia you don't even need to talk about that.
Oh, an Aussie German, then. Well, that explains a lot.
By the way, can you tell me why you refuse to sign Kyoto? Come on, just between the two of us. I promise I won't tell.
Therefore, the Higher Reason may simply be, that God-given Freedom has a price, and that it's up to us to lower that price by making the right... "market" choices and limit "inflation" of our moral debt. ;-)
Or make up our own laws, rules and regulations to remove that freedom again - then we can always use the Nuremberg-excuse (I was ordered to).
Just give me a name, and by this time next week you'll be following no orders but your own. There are some perks to living in Hezbollah country...
Well unless life is a limited-state game you would for sure be in a different situation from where you are now.
No argument about THAT. But would different be better or worse, Nostradamus?
Speaking of limited-state games, have you been playing this one recently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
["All hail the divine Play Station. There is no Truth outside it. May our Memory Cards forever remain full. In the name of the Mother Board, of the Sony, and the Holy Joypad, Press Start."]
D'oh! You're a pagan! I knew it!! ;-)
I prefer the term "worshipper of a Higher Artificial Intelligence", if you don't mind. A HAIer, for short.
Actually, I'm more of an infidel, I am ashamed to admit. I mean, if it weren't for my 2 year old nephew hounding me to see Dora the Explorer on the Purple Planet, I wouldn't even be bowing before my Praying Screen once a week. Oh, shame on me!!! As a corporeal punishment, I'll have to play Dhalsim against Akuma in Nightmare difficulty and lose on purpose 33 times...
If that posts award depended on quantity, I'd be a sure winner. If it depended on quality? Um... less likely! (^_^)
You're too modest! ;-)
As a matter of fact, I'm the most modest person in the whole world. But I don't like to brag about it...
"In 200 words or less. Due for Monday."
That'd be a tough call, though.
Aw come on, man! Do you really need more than 200 words and from now till Monday simply to tell me that the interest/length ratio of my posts is too low? I'm not asking for a documented essay with slides, you know.
However it doesn't really feel much like a public discussion to me anymore.
We all know what results "public discussion" of Euthanasia has brought in the past. Let's just settle this in private, and then impose our decisions on the unthinking masses!
I did have a feeling that a mention of euthanasia would lead to something like this... :)
Like I said, really big can of worms.
Eolake,
Admit it: you like worms, right?
Which is why I'm breaking the exponential cuve. Or plannig to!!!
That one didn't work out - less than 20% on my scrollbar... >:->
You are free to feel otherwise should it happen to you. In the end, we each have to decide, whenever we can.
From the comfort of my chair, I phantasize that I would give myself some time to mentally calm down, make my peace with the world, myself and death, try and see if there's any way I can regain some control over at least parts of my body (some people manage to), then (after doing the previous steps, not before) figure out if I want to keep living under the circumstances or not. If not, I'd try to die, give myself some time for working it out, and if I found that I consistently fail with it then reconsider.
Of course that's theory but then I'm quite glad that that's my only perspective on it.
YOUR position is the one that should matter the most.
Of course, I totally agree.
I just can't bear to see a dumb dinosaur suffer and squirm for decades like this!
Why, they have achieved a lot, haven't they? Um...
(Well at least they have quite clearly not given a mandate for the current war on Iraq - if there were only consequences...)
"Didn't seem"? Have you seen his acting?
I think I have seen one from the series - don't remember which one - pretty long ago. I don't remember much of the story or acting, either, but found it quite entertaining. But there was a doctor who defied her orders by not deleting his memories, so there was someone believing she had a case.
And I think he went in peace, essentially, from finally realizing that death can become a friend in the Order of things. Peace from his terror of the unavoidable End.
Exactly.
Ultimately, we have no right to force someone to live.
You assume that we have the power to do so. I assume we don't.
Which means we might not always see them, but there must be some reasons for hope.
Now you are saying the same thing as those dead-set against Euthanasia. In a different context, but the message is the same...
It might be only a facade, but I seem to have heard about a thing called "Internal Affairs". In civilized countries. And in theory.
Yes, a nice theory indeed.
'Remembering and admitting the Past's mistakes is the mark of civilized people.'
"I agree, and Germany keeps being beaten over the head for it - I wonder what that might signify..."
It signifies that repenting is no reason to forgive, and that you'll bear the mark of the sins of your fathers until the seventieth generation.
Well yes, that's a whole issue in and by itself, but what I was referring to was the fact that many of its friends(?) don't like the fact that Germany has been trying to do some things differently as a consequence of its past. E.g. keeping the army purely for defence purposes - there's a continuous push for it to provide troops for all sorts of things. Not get involved in a war of aggression (Iraq) - I don't need to tell you about the "Coalition of the Willing" and the re-emerging Nazi-speak ("those who are not with us are against us" - Goebbels). Or its abstention from nukes. Or its conservative (I mean in the true sense, not the political) position about monitoring and data collection (though that has begun to shift, and is now changing rapidly - talk about inertia). It's not about the things that Germany has done in the past, but about those Germany refuses to do today because of them.
Many want a rueful, down-trodden Germany, but they don't want it to stand by the side and not play along with everything the class-bullies come up with (or even speak up!), because that might make some people feel awkward about what they are doing.
Antisemitism is very well-spread in this part of the world. Including among christian Arabs. I just LOVE that particular argument : "The jews are a criminal people : they crucified Jesus!"
And, of course, today's jews are still just as guilty, hunh? Oh, wait, I thought it was the Roman administration that carried out the Sanhedrin's sentence? :-P
Oh yes, religion is great, isn't it? Now what would people do if they didn't have some nice, big boxes they could sort everyone into?
The big clash between East and West has petered out, skin colour as a differentiator has gone out of fashion, so why not go back to good old religion, that's an oldie but goldie! :->
Actually, I think the Nazis never bothered with any pretense of compassion. They were just "cleaning the race", making sure nobody involved would wonder between a real life or just being alive. Very practical people, in their own way... :-(
Just my point - once the criterion of a life being, or not being, a "REAL" life has been accepted, that criterion itself is open for redefinition. You base it on compassion but that need not be the only one.
And yes, practical they were - it seems it's always the practical people who "achieve" something, one way or the other. Just be wary of "practical" or "pragmatic" politicians...
"I don't mean to equate that to our topic, but look at what's happening to the human rights"
Again, that shift is merely pretending not to travel in reverse. It just needed a fancy, new-sounding label.
Exactly. Now there you see "practical" politicians and their spin-doctors at work.
Bullies always like to justify themselves, and to feel noble.
I'm not sure if the like that, or if they just see the need for their electorate to think thusly of them. The political system just kind of requires it if you want to be re-elected (think of it as being practical...)
The self-assumed villains I love so much in cartoons are alas characters of pure fiction.
You mean, like Idi Amin?
The end. It even became an expression : "to send Granny up the attic"...
:-o
I haven't hear of that one, but I can imagine. So there you go...
"Germans/Nazis were monsters, therefore they had nothing in common with human beings, ergo, such terrible things can never happen in a human society." Pretty convenient, hunh? ):-P
Yep, and also they are not happening, have never happened and if you think something similar might be happening you must be insane! (Or German - they are known to be a bit off-kilter, just don't take them seriously or, if they persist, attack them over their past.)
Then you'd better turn off your TV, and quick!
For that I'd have to turn it on, first - haven't done that for more than 12 years. (It doesn't help to have Internet, though...)
"I know that's just me and probably pretty much out of fashion, too, what with 'common good over individual good' - this could just be communist and we all know they lost, right? ;-)"
In fact, the first thing they *lost* was their principles. Read Orwell's Animal Farm...
There you see: we've got a complete chain of arguments now. "common good over individual good" is communist, the communists lost, which proves that its principles cannot be maintained - see "Animal Farm". (I started reading it at School, but as most books we had to read never finished it...)
Some would say that your refusal of being treated with an available transplant is a form of suicide, just like refusing to have a transfusion or to take antibiotics.
In my books suicide is if you kill yourself. I'd call this letting nature take its course, or heeding the call of fate.
I heard that in Morocco, the king refused to open a heart-surgery unit in the capital, because with the money about to go in that project, he could rather launch a nationwide campaign and vaccinate every last child against Polio. Wisdom with limited resources...
Makes some sense to me, and it's a decision which you'd have a hard time defending in a democracy. Of course the king, should he ever have a heart-problem, has other options.
But YOU don't live in Morocco, engine boy.
No I don't, I live in a society where the health system costs are allowed to sky-rocket unchecked, and everything that can be done, must be done. Well I won't complain - health insurance in Australia is cheap, compared with Germany.
"Are you playing smart-Alec with me, boy?"
My preferred game, or why would we be having this discussion? <:->
Anencephaly is a very hard thing to meet with, but ethics-wise it is very... cooperative. Self-solving.
However Wikipedia states that the survival "record" stands at 11 years, so it seems it's also not entirely without the type of problems we've been discussing.
And perhaps feeling loved is the first step in wanting to live? Live for love, I like the sound of that.
Even if that's not universally true, as I suspect it might be, it at least helps a great deal...
Pandora? Damn, girl, there was really a lot of stuff in that box, wasn't it?
You wouldn't expect me to come empty-handed, would you?
"That may sound foreign to many Western minds, but I think there's something to living one's life in the awareness of death."
Sure. But I think we agreed that life is more than the road leading you from birth to death. Many people make valid points. We should take them into consideration, without pushing all the rest aside.
Well I think the emphasis still is on "living", and Tibetan culture doesn't look like one that disappreciates life.
As for Madagascar, here's a brief outlook : they get themselves in debt for decades, just so departed Daddy can have a luxurious coffin and a very costly hand-weaved shroud, that kind of stuff. Suddenly seems much less deep, doesn't it?
Uh, it's, um, well, a long-term investment, isn't it? Or maybe not.
Well I wasn't saying that whatever any aboriginal people do is the right thing, only that there are some which have a somewhat more natural relationship to death, and then often to life, too. What you're describing doesn't seem natural to me. (I wonder if some people eager to sell loans would have had a hand in the current practice.)
THIS sounds like a sensible topic for a legal campaigning, doesn't it?
I don't know. I still have the feeling that such cases (not just the "miracles" who wake up, but cases where people are in coma for such a long time and there's disagreement about their further handling) are so few and far between that there are much better contenders to focus one's attention on.
Very easy to rent.
Now really? Tell me more about it! :-)
I just haven't been in the mood to watch DVDs lately, but have made a mental note.
"However, who's a winner and who's a loser?"
So, you begin to see my whole point.
Of course I do, but it's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that it might well be a good thing overall for some people to care for a comatose person, over a long time. For their own sake. And if that patient never wakes up, or even died, they might still consider themselves to have gained an important experience and thus overall feel like a winner in a certain sense, personal grief notwithstanding.
To re-use an earlier argument, we might put that money to better use by sending it into medical research for genetic deseases, or simply decreasing the crime rate in poor neighborhoods. We'd do much more good in terms of lives saved AND improved.
We might do both, and I'm not sure if saving money in the health sector would lead to more money being spent for social issues. To say the least. I am sure there's enough money to go around to do both, it's just put into completely different (should I say the opposite?) causes.
War : now, here's the undisputed record cause of waste in human history!
You said it. As well as the preparation for (and allegedly against) the same.
The remedy exists : it's sense, educating the masses and accounting the leaders for their disrespect of ethics. Alas! So many people refuse to take their medication, that it is hardly being manufactured at all.
What do you expect if you give the power to decide on these issues to the very people who have big stakes in the outcome to be what it is?
But I digress again, right Pandora?
That's alright - a little pink dream now and then is in order. Man what have you been smoking? :-P
BTW, do you know how the myth of Pandora continues? She closed the box as fast as she could, but too late. Almost too late. There, at the bottom of the cursed box, she managed to keep the only remedy for the calamities she had unleashed. Because among them, there was also Hope. And to this day, Mankind still possesses Hope.
Wouldn't it be time to unleash that as well? Just asking - the other stuff obviously got activated by letting it loose...
"Other religious extremists of every couleur are doing their best to follow suit."
That'd be "doing their holy worst". Not to sound gratuitously grandiloquent, but this is really where the fate of Mankind is being decided. Specially if you consider the Ayatollahs want the Bomb... and clearly suggest they intend to use it!
Of course they want it - so would I if I was them. The message that's being consistently put out by the super-power(cough, "s") that be is that if you've got the bomb then you are treated with care and respect, and if you don't then you better watch out and do what you're told. What's not to expect?
The best hope would be to overturn the theocracy in Iran... but in such a way that it doesn't appear as "hated America's" agenda.
It's not that this hasn't been tried...
In a subtle, reasoned, pacific way.
That's a tall order, in particular if you recall that the current regime came into power as a result of a revolution against the oppressive dictatorship of the Shah, who was no better (if not worse) than Saddam and in turn came into his position because some, say, forces, could not live with a moderate islamist regime which had been democratically elected by the people.
So where it all started was the meddling with the political agenda in Iran - I wouldn't expect more of the same to fix the problem.
Also I believe that most people in Iran generally don't stand behind their regime, but the external pressure does its part to unify the rows. And by most it's probably still considered a lesser evil than the Shah's reign which must have been really horrible (not that we in the West heard much about it because he was well-regarded here, wonder why).
Now for them wanting the bomb - I guess they do, but they insist they don't, rather than only wanting to pursue civil use of nuclear energy, which they are allowed to, according to the appropriate treaties.
I wouldn't necessarily trust what they are saying, but nor would I trust what the US are saying because we all know that they have their own agenda, too. Besides that they've cried "wolf" before, and disobey about any and every treaty they've ever joined, including the nuclear disarmament treaty.
The big bully saying "do as I say, not as I do" just isn't very convincing by itself and before waging plans about regime overthrows, war threats and the like, one might first like to consider addressing the reasons for the actual situation. Of course that would require the involved nations to ask some hard questions of themselves, and do something about them, and thus their own credibility.
And of course that's only adequate if the outcome we are steering towards - war - is not exactly what's wanted, as was the case with Iraq.
And I fear an open war against Iran would do just the opposite.
It will.
U.N. sanctions against Saddam were working, the best proof is he had no WMDs left to discover.
Of course, and everyone knew that. But he still had the audacity to switch the currency for oil payments to Euros - we (?) couldn't have that...
Souls trapped in Limbo are supposed to suffer a soul's suffering there, I heard.
Haven't heard about that, but that doesn't mean much. Where does that come from?
But I feel as if the first saving step would be to clean house from the theories of all the bigots. Which is already a challenging task!
Indeed! How can you tell if a theory has merit or not? By who defends it? :-P
Do you think if we can choose to stop living, at the limit we can choose not to be born? (I once heard a joke that started like that. It's a pregnant woman who's beyond term...)
Hm, no offence intended but it seems like rather a bad joke, or no?
I don't know if we can choose not to be born (ultimately we always have to come out, but who knows if there's an influence we can take on the timing), but I believe we can choose to live, or not. And/or maybe to be conceived, or not.
That's when, on your Playstation, the character is being allocated, and birth is when it's initialised...
I find it tough to concentrate under extreme pressure...
How on Earth did you get your job? Didn't it say in the duty statement "thrives under pressure"? <;->
Beginning with some oil companies already worried about the future of their business, and thinking more and more towards alternative and "clean" energies.
Or rather all the hype about hydrogen, which is really more of an energy storage medium than a source. But great for business.
But I'm ready to bet there will still be a major crisis when the time comes, because most politicians won't have cared and planned enough.
Either that, or they did, and in truth the major agenda item really is to push nuclear energy back into life. Even greater for business (and for all branches of secret services and military, see
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0448151618 )
I find it kind of suspect how quickly and out of nowhere this "Oil Peak" topic has popped into the public - that's very atypical for true environmental issues without a major driving force with some leverage behind them.
I'm all for being sensible with our resources, but I've also been told that humanity would run out of nearly all important natural resources within 30 years, 30 years ago at School. It's undoubted that we do need a different approach to our energy usage, but as I see it the discussion currently is driven by very specific interests, namely hydrogen and nuclear.
See you in thirty for that bet, then, old chap.
Oh yes, and don't forget! :-)
I'll have you know that Youth Anasia is the daughter of this thread. So, we're shopping in a family business here...
Either that, or she's the siamese sister of the Heir Prince of Atlantis, who is also her uncle.
Siamese sister of her uncle? You're some medic, lol! :-D
You sound just like a liberal left-wing radical.
Left-wing? Radical? Am? You mean I have one? A radical on my left wing? You know, I didn't have my wings clipped - most people seem to only want one but I have no idea how they manage to fly...
Ah, and I've taken some Vitamin C, against the free radicals - thanks for pointing them out! :-]
Are you SURE you're not american?
Um, well, how would I know? I can only say what I've been told but this is such a strange world...
(And a very bad patriot?)
Well I guess that depends on your definitions of "American", "bad" and "patriot". And I guess that's also a call that would have most Germans take a step back and be very wary about your agenda (I'm sure we'll be able to shift this back to where it should be, though, in the longer term).
I like this quote from Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
Funny that, when searching for it, the next one on the page I found it on was "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - I wonder what this says about his support for his government.
Even after all the laughs you guys gave me with your last election!
Now that was a laugh indeed. What I found most amazing about it, looking from Australia, was how keen every party was to insist on which other parties they would under no circumstances cooperate with. In the end that didn't leave them much maneuvering space and I also wonder how respectful it really is of the people's will, i.e. democracy.
Oh, an Aussie German, then. Well, that explains a lot.
Like what? And who said I'm German?
By the way, can you tell me why you refuse to sign Kyoto?
Well I don't, but noone asked me to - it's as simple as that. Just send it over and I'll send it back, signed, the same day. Promised.
"Or make up our own laws, rules and regulations to remove that freedom again - then we can always use the Nuremberg-excuse (I was ordered to)."
Just give me a name, and by this time next week you'll be following no orders but your own. There are some perks to living in Hezbollah country...
How's that a perk, not having someone (or something, like a law or regulation) to blame for what you're accused of having done wrong?
No argument about THAT. But would different be better or worse, Nostradamus?
That depends on your interpretation, doesn't it?
But you get my point, don't you? >:-)
Speaking of limited-state games, have you been playing this one recently?
No, but I remember that we wrote one in the programming course at School and then ran it on the School computer - about 10 minutes per iteration, in about the same resolution as the one on the Wikipedia page. Those were the days - I shouldn't talk about 'cause I'm showing my age...
You're too modest! ;-)
As a matter of fact, I'm the most modest person in the whole world. But I don't like to brag about it...
I know...
"'In 200 words or less. Due for Monday.'
That'd be a tough call, though."
Aw come on, man! Do you really need more than 200 words and from now till Monday simply to tell me that the interest/length ratio of my posts is too low? I'm not asking for a documented essay with slides, you know.
Ah, I misunderstood - I thought you were paraphrasing what Eolake might ask of you (i.e. get your next post up until Monday and make it 200 words).
We all know what results "public discussion" of Euthanasia has brought in the past. Let's just settle this in private, and then impose our decisions on the unthinking masses!
Done deal! :-)
Now, what did we agree on, again?
;-)
Second attempt. I'll stop that Mothra maggot from exponentially outgrowing Godzilla, even if whole cities must be destroyed in the process!
(Incidentally, I once saw the original Godzilla movie. An allegory for the atomic trauma lived by Japan in 1945, and shot shortly after. If you watch it with this in mind, it's awesome for a retro movie.)
From the comfort of my chair, I phantasize that I would give myself some time...
I hate it when people speak so soundly, there's nothing more to criticize or disagree about. It's just no fun any more!
YOUR position is the one that should matter the most.
Of course, I totally agree.
Yeah, but it's not your decision. It's God's self-appointed army that will make the call -with the Lord's help and support-.
Have you noticed that a Bible can make an excellent weapon? As a blunt instrument, that is. Specially those heavy special editions. Me, I like to assess my point with the help of an impressive dictionnary. I'm a black belt Dik-Sho-Nari master now...
I just can't bear to see a dumb dinosaur suffer and squirm for decades like this!
Why, they have achieved a lot, haven't they? Um...
Yeah, the list is so impressive I don't even know where to start!!!
Robocop
My U.S. advisor concurs with you, albeit for different reasons.
In France, they say : Je pense, donc je suis.
In England : I think, therefore I am.
In Texas : I shoot, therefore I am.
'Nuff said, yo!
Ultimately, we have no right to force someone to live.
You assume that we have the power to do so. I assume we don't.
I wonder what Terri assumed.
But I get the feeling we're running in circles, metaphysically. Perhaps they're 4-dimentional crop circles?...
Which means we might not always see them, but there must be some reasons for hope.
Now you are saying the same thing as those dead-set against Euthanasia. In a different context, but the message is the same...
THEY are the ones who took my message out of context. I am SO suing their assets! (The typo is deliberate. I'm aiming at the wallet, that's where it hurts the most.)
"Dead-set"... did you intend that one? (^_^)
["Internal Affairs"] Yes, a nice theory indeed.
I believe it may be related to the one by Einstein. You know, "everything is relative" und stuff...
("those who are not with us are against us" - Goebbels)
I never get tired of that one. In a way, a great self-assumed villain! ;-)
It's not about the things that Germany has done in the past, but about those Germany refuses to do today because of them.
Yeah, shame on them from becoming cautious and reflecting! They should just let God and the Book think for them, period.
Oh yes, religion is great, isn't it? Now what would people do if they didn't have some nice, big boxes they could sort everyone into?
I keep trying to sort out the mess in my room, but somehow I always seem to have more clutter than available boxes.
Now that Ark will never be ready on time, I'm not done packing! [Verdamnt, where is my umbrella?]
so why not go back to good old religion, that's an oldie but goldie! :->
Fine classics never get out of fashion. (Distant voice coming down from 8 feet high platform shoes. With cross-shaped platforms.)
it seems it's always the practical people who "achieve" something, one way or the other. Just be wary of "practical" or "pragmatic" politicians...
I "practically" never trust them! ;-)
Takes a lot of practice though...
that shift is merely pretending not to travel in reverse.
Exactly. Now there you see "practical" politicians and their spin-doctors at work.
Let's settle this issue, if you please : are they spinning, of going straight backwards?
Bullies always like to justify themselves, and to feel noble.
The political system just kind of requires it if you want to be re-elected
I don't think that was much of image-cult Comrade Stalin's concern. A bully is, by definition, egocentric. They simply like feeling loved. The electoral advantages are often mere side benefits.
In Syria, President Assad has his gold-framed portrait at every street corner (without exageration). I don't think it is about his next re-election campaign...
self-assumed villains
You mean, like Idi Amin?
I know the name, but little of the man. And I claim to be cultivated!
Oh, well, nothing that five minutes on Wikipedia can't fix...
and if you think something similar might be happening you must be insane! (Or German
We're getting redundant here... ;-)
Then you'd better turn off your TV, and quick!
For that I'd have to turn it on, first
Well, d'uh! Do you need EVERYTHING explained to you?!? Turn it on, and then turn it off like I told you to! )8-(
"Animal Farm". (I started reading it at School, but as most books we had to read never finished it...)
It's worth the effort. An effort which was pure pleasure to me.
As I said to my own father : "Not everything liked by somebody you hate HAS to be bad." To which he replied : "Yes it does."
(Does not. -Does too. -Does not...)
Some would say that your refusal of being treated with an available transplant is a form of suicide, just like refusing to have a transfusion or to take antibiotics.
In my books suicide is if you kill yourself. I'd call this letting nature take its course, or heeding the call of fate.
First law of robotics : "A robot must not cause harm to a human, or, by staying passive, let harm occur to a human." There was a very interesting story by Asimov about what happened when you removed that second part from their programming. A very nasty can of electric wires...
For instance, if a robot is to actively initiate a hazard (like a tumbling boulder, or a speeding train) that threatens your life, but only does so if the robot doesn't save you in the meantime, which he easily can... he's not yet violating the First Law. But, if then he's allowed to remain passive... he's rid of you puny human!
Of course the king, should he ever have a heart-problem, has other options.
And, the ultimate option is always valid : "The King is dead, long live the King." Reverse-euthanasia...
"Are you playing smart-Alec with me, boy?"
My preferred game, or why would we be having this discussion? <:->
I knew you were a smart kid. TAG, YOU'RE IT!
Anencephaly : Wikipedia states that the survival "record" stands at 11 years
I'm sure that one MUST have received machine help to feed and drink. Since usually even these basic reflexes are absent.
The question remains : what kind of a human life is it, when there's no brain, no consciousness, and therefore no mind? Is there even a soul? A goldfish would return you much more affection.
Well, answer to that in my third novel, after I receive some secrets from the Creator in person. But I'm still writing the FIRST book, so you'll have to be patient... :-)
In the meantime, I bet my Vegetative can outlast your strongest Anencephaly any day! And, I also place this face-down card for later. Your turn, Yu-Gi...
Pandora? Damn, girl, there was really a lot of stuff in that box, wasn't it?
You wouldn't expect me to come empty-handed, would you?
That's why I got you under my skin, sugar-baby. You're so giving! And imaginative, hmmm....
Tibetan culture doesn't look like one that disappreciates life.
I always knew I liked this Dalai Lama dude... He gently forces respect!
As for Madagascar...
Uh, it's, um, well, a long-term investment, isn't it?
"Diamonds are forever, Bond my love. And SO SHALL BE YOUR COFFIN, 007! DIE!!!"
We're talking long-term, as in "for all eternity". I so love optimistic people!...
(I wonder if some people eager to sell loans would have had a hand in the current practice.)
I think that, for once, the invention of loans is posterior to this custom. And perhaps even inspired by it. "You got a son? -Um, yeah. -Then no worries, my friend! If you die too soon, you son will pay up the remaining amount, and we won't repo your coffin. -Great! Where do I sign?"
Very easy to rent.
I just haven't been in the mood to watch DVDs lately, but have made a mental note.
Far out! I already knew you were mental, dude. Hey, welcome to the club! Oh, you brought your own club? Even better! (Wham!)
I'm not sure if saving money in the health sector would lead to more money being spent for social issues.
Bah, you're just a bitter pessimist who's got no faith in the greatness of our System and the honesty of our politicians!
What do you expect if you give the power to decide on these issues to the very people who have big stakes in the outcome to be what it is?
I expect nothing. That way, I'll only have nice surprises. (Otherwise, they won't be surprises, right?)
That's alright - a little pink dream now and then is in order. Man what have you been smoking? :-P
Catnip. Works great on felines, doesn't it? AND it's legal! 8-)~
And to this day, Mankind still possesses Hope.
Wouldn't it be time to unleash that as well? Just asking - the other stuff obviously got activated by letting it loose...
Doesn't loose hope sound just like what a Televangelist offers you?
the Ayatollahs want the Bomb... and clearly suggest they intend to use it!
Of course they want it - so would I if I was them.
You're one hazardous person to know for a guy on parole, you know that?
What's not to expect?
Nothing's NOT to expect. Nothing bad, at least. See above regarding surprises...
The best hope would be to overturn the theocracy in Iran...
It's not that this hasn't been tried...
The only sensible (and decent) way to accomplish this, the way I see it, is by ensuring education to the people (both scientific and social), and then they'll be truly free in their minds and just might democratically change their own fate. And, the great thing about this is, sound and whole education can never be rejected under the pretense of being as a plot against the interests of a nation/people/community.
I know, I should cut down on cat-weed. But damn, dog, that stuff is fine! Knowhatimsayin?
the current regime came into power as a result of a revolution against the oppressive dictatorship of the Shah, who was no better (if not worse) than Saddam
The West is starting to realize there can be far worse things than Saddam. Like the current situation, with fanatics in fact nearly ruling the land. Saddam was one person, with his own material interests to protect. That made him respondent to pressure. What kind of pressure can you put on near-independent groups of people united only by a single purpose, and this purpose often being death in war to get 73 houris as a reward in Allah's Gardens? The more you threaten them, the more likely they'll see that eventual reward in their minds.
and in turn came into his position because some, say, forces, could not live with a moderate islamist regime which had been democratically elected by the people.
It is being more and more said that Democracy is not a viable system for this part of the world. If for no other reason, because Democracy requires the freedom brought by education to the minds. You don't hand their own destinies to primitive people with a tribal/herd of sheep mentality and expect anything positive to come from it. I just have to see Lebanon, which is perhaps the most advanced country in the Arab/Islamic world. And that's not saying much!!!
Also I believe that most people in Iran generally don't stand behind their regime, but the external pressure does its part to unify the rows.
I'm not saying that praise from the U.S. government would instantly lead to a revolution overthrowing the Ayatollahs, but you're entirely right : the "civilized" world is supposed to have a sense of psychology, which seems to be safely locked away in a Swiss bank!!!
Now for them wanting the bomb - I guess they do, but they insist they don't
Suuure, and they'll just find another legal way to "erase the Israeli cancer from the map". Like, using the very fine erasers found in the Rotring products catalog, and rubbing real hard on a pencil-drawn map? ):-P
rather than only wanting to pursue civil use of nuclear energy, which they are allowed to, according to the appropriate treaties.
Sure. The 4th oil reserves country in the world, where gas is notoriously dirt-cheap, needs nuclear reactors for its energetic needs. How did I not see that for myself? (Just being rethorical here, naturally.)
Did you hear, on the films of the Pakistanis testing their nuke-compatible missiles, what the officials present were chanting? "Allah akbar."
But I'm sure it had to just mean "please, Lord, make it that the rocket doesn't blow up in our faces!". Yeah, right.
Einstein hoped Mankind would reach an evolution where nukes would be decommissioned worldwide. Do you want to see the ultimate weapon in the hands of people who consider dying in a war against the rest of the infidel world as the higher goal of God creating the Universe?
Whe have a very popular and old proverb, here in the region : "The weapon, in the hands of the shit-head, will hurt!"
More weapons in the hands of more opportunistic and less sensible people, will bring nothing good. What the world really needs is a U.S. government who finally understands that the collective interest ultimately helps their own country's interests too. We're not close to being there yet. But still, I keep the hope that the American people are not stupid, naive and primitive enough to be fooled forever. Their President Lincoln said it very long ago...
Another problem is, traditionally Islam has a conquest mentality. It is in the core of their religious belief and notorious teachings, that they must not rest before the whole world has been submitted and converted to the One True Faith. If this widespread culture (vastly majoritary in these countries) doesn't change, you'll soon find out that the U.S. agenda, as much as I too hate it, is by far the lesser evil. And we both know that's really saying something!
one might first like to consider addressing the reasons for the actual situation.
I think muslim extremism, once very marginal, has been widely supported and spread by the CIA as a way of fighting fire with fire : fighting the Comminist anti-religious doctrin with its opposite force. Talk about playing with matches, hunh?
And of course that's only adequate if the outcome we are steering towards - war - is not exactly what's wanted, as was the case with Iraq.
I don't want to talk about the implications of the Lebanese events. :-(
Some people here would actually PREFER a regional war, this way the countries actually in disagreement would keep their fisticuffs out of our hair! If my dog bites you from my neighbor's garden and then hides, do you shoot my neighbor? That'll be impressive, but useless in the end... Unless your wife calls you a coward and male pride makes it mandatory for you to do something, anything, not to lose face.
U.N. sanctions against Saddam were working, the best proof is he had no WMDs left to discover.
Of course, and everyone knew that. But he still had the audacity to switch the currency for oil payments to Euros - we (?) couldn't have that...
Oh. I didn't know about that. Now, really, the bastard crossed the BIG red line. He had this war deservingly coming. "Oh my God! Saddam swindled Kenny!"
Souls trapped in Limbo are supposed to suffer a soul's suffering there, I heard.
Haven't heard about that, but that doesn't mean much. Where does that come from?
Catechism. For instance, if you commit suicide, you'll remain in Limbo -perhaps until the moment for your original Destined death, whatever that means in Limbo time-. And, the souls of unbaptized children can't go to Heaven, at best to Limbo. And other nice tolerant stuff like that. See also Wikipedia, even though the theories are many.
Indeed! How can you tell if a theory has merit or not? By who defends it? :-P
Precisely. "Buy this toothpaste, because I'm famous and I endorse it." See? It's so simple!
(It's a pregnant woman who's beyond term...)
Hm, no offence intended but it seems like rather a bad joke, or no?
Not really. Here it is :
A pregnant woman reaches term. No birth. Ten months. Still no birth. Eleven months. Twelve. In the end, the doctor decides to make an... in-depth investigation. High-tech audio-video equipment is inserted into the uterus, and an image appears on screen. With sound. Two twins are engaged in deep conversation : "After you. -Oh no, after YOU! -I'll do nothing of the sort. You go first. -No, no, I insist!..."
There's another variant, made in Lebanon (and probably many other countries as well). It so happens that Lebanon is in astronomic debt today : more than 40 billion U.S. dollars. And we're not even 4 million inhabitants!
A woman in Lebanon reaches term. The contractions begin, and it's very painful on her, but after hours and hours, there's still no result whatsoever. So, the doctor takes a deep breath, dakes a dive and goes after the baby : "Come on, will you? Come on out, enough is enough." Then, he hears a tiny voice answering him : "Oh no I won't! I'm staying right here! The instant I'm outside, I'll have a $10 grand debt to pay up!"
I believe we can choose to live, or not. And/or maybe to be conceived, or not.
Ah. So, you remember the very tender age when you were the fastest sperm of them all. Say, some impressive memory you have!
That's when, on your Playstation, the character is being allocated, and birth is when it's initialised...
Are you trying to lecture me about the Holy PrayStation, you infidel Nintendog? You, whose miscreant mother bit off the Macintosh Apple? May the viruses rain on your PDA, and you GPS lead you to Tikrit!
How on Earth did you get your job? Didn't it say in the duty statement "thrives under pressure"?
No, actually that's the electrical tension that appears in piezo-electric crystals.
Beginning with some oil companies already worried about the future of their business, and thinking more and more towards alternative and "clean" energies.
Or rather all the hype about hydrogen, which is really more of an energy storage medium than a source. But great for business.
Not only. I think. On EuroNews channel, Shell is doing a big "coms" effort to promote their efforts in stuff like eolian energy, bio-fuels, etc... Or so they swear, at least.
Either that, or they did, and in truth the major agenda item really is to push nuclear energy back into life.
Atomic-engine cars only work in Sixties' retro Sci-Fi. We need some other options, my dear Brick Bradshaw.
I find it kind of suspect how quickly and out of nowhere this "Oil Peak" topic has popped into the public - that's very atypical for true environmental issues without a major driving force with some leverage behind them.
Well, I love saying to a person : "You talk utterly stupid nonsense" at any given chance, but I'm a poor liar. :-(
[How poor? Remember : I'm $10.000 in debt!]
Could the leverage be ONLY the intention to go at oil-producing rogue countries? I don't know, sounds too simple...
as I see it the discussion currently is driven by very specific interests, namely hydrogen and nuclear.
I thought controlled fusion wasn't ready yet? ;-)
Siamese sister of her uncle? You're some medic, lol! :-D
Ah, but allow me to explain, my dear soap-opera newbie! You see, of course if he is her uncle, she will also be (no, not his niece! Although that too) his aunt, and he her nephew.
Which implies a multi-level incest. Anasia's uncle is her mother's brother. Which means they must have the same father. Which means the woman had siamese twins with her own father. Quite simple, hunh? And I have even worse in store!...
most people seem to only want one but I have no idea how they manage to fly...
I think I saw a critter like that in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, one of Harry Potter's classbooks. It's called Billywig or something, and its dizzying venom is an ingredient of the popular "uplifting" wizard drink Fizwizbiz.
Ah, and I've taken some Vitamin C, against the free radicals - thanks for pointing them out! :-]
A Doctor's duty toward public health. :-)
FREE - THE - RADICALS!
FREE - THE - RADICALS!
Are you SURE you're not american? (And a very bad patriot?)
Well I guess that depends on your definitions of "American", "bad" and "patriot".
The official definition on U.S.A. official media, of course. Why, is there any other??? (Innocent kid's stare.)
And I guess that's also a call that would have most Germans take a step back and be very wary about your agenda
Damn! These Germans aren't as easy to fool as the rest... On to Plan B then.
(mumble, mumble... do i have a plan B?...)
I like this quote from Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
I like all of Mark Twain. Not just the quotes. :-)
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - I wonder what this says about his support for his government.
This seems to say he liked to repeat himself in long redundant criticizing blogposts. You can drop the mask now, I know your real name isn't Ronald! Mr Samuel Langhorne Clemens, I presume?
And who said I'm German?
Didn't you mention something quite detailed about the German legal system, a few miles above from where we're now standing?
By the way, can you tell me why you refuse to sign Kyoto?
Just send it over and I'll send it back, signed, the same day. Promised.
Sure. As soon as I sign it myself. But the air is already so clean in Lebanon by itself! We get rid of the flies by open-air incineration of the trash. Smart, hunh? Fries the vermin at the same time.
There are some perks to living in Hezbollah country...
How's that a perk, not having someone (or something, like a law or regulation) to blame for what you're accused of having done wrong?
And whoever said you needed someone to blame in Lebanon? Who's there to hold you accountable anyway? The PEOPLE, perhaps? (Hah! That one always cracks me up!)
That depends on your interpretation, doesn't it?
But you get my point, don't you? >:-)
And what a very sharp point that is. (Ouch!) Now please excuse me, I feel like I could sleep for 100 years non-stop. Nighty-night, Princess...
Those were the days - I shouldn't talk about 'cause I'm showing my age...
Allright, if you show me yours, I'll show you mine. ;-)
I still have a listing, from my teen years, for a software of this game on the ZX Spectrum. Too bad my spectrum is long dead...
Let's just settle this in private, and then impose our decisions on the unthinking masses!
Done deal! :-) Now, what did we agree on, again?
We agreed to do whatever project I'll give you to sign, provided its title appears to be "KYOTO PROTOCOL". I'll handle the rest... and the world! You just relax and hand me the keys to that lovely retro summer camp in Dachau.
President Ahmadinejad is visiting Auschwitz. He looks around, and declares : "I see only one logical explanation for all the sudden deaths in this lovely summer camp : a Bird Flu epidemic!" -- (From a portugese cartoon entry in the Shoah cartoon contest Iran's President had announced.)
AAARGH!!
I just lost 2.5 hours of work when Firefox crashed on me - I give up, you win!
I am very sorry to hear of this loss.
It's a bit late to say this for this instance, but I do recommend if you write more than a few paragraphs, to write it in a pure text application, so you can save it. (Not MS Word, it introduces odd codes.)
Also, what many don't do: when you do write, save after every paragraph. Just make a habit: paragraph-->ctrl-S (command-S on the Mac).
[By the way, am I the only one who often has trouble reading the twisted letters to type in when making a comment?]
Sincere condoleances, Ronald. Honestly.
Naturally, I did just as Eolake advises for my longer posts. I can't afford to stay online for this long : I pay on the duration here.
Besides, I hate wining by default. Specially if there doesn't have to be a loser! (So please, don't commit suicide.)
"Game Over. Care to insert another coin and continue?"
Eolake,
I sometimes have to give the twisted letters a second go too. But I guess the idea is to make it exponentially harder for spamming robots.
Which I guess you already knew.
rtddfsfc -> [Click!]
Unh, make that cafwsifta
-> [Click!]
AAARGH!!
It changed again! I give up. You win, you satanic blog engine.
Post a Comment